Puthige Grama Panchayath v. Regional Transport Authority, Kasaragod

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/5TH BHADRA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 20292 of 2013 (J)** **--------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **-----------------------** **PUTHIGE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PUTHIGE P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.PRADEESH MATHEW** **RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------** **THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KASARAGO - 671121, , REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.SANEER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** ## **WP(C).No. 20292 of 2013 (J)** **---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1. A TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER ALONG WITH THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE PANCHAYATH ON 1/8/201 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 1682011.** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 632013.** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.4298 /2013 DATED 14/2/2013.** **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN MCARP N0.57/2012 DTED 14/12/2012.** **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PREPARED BY THE MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR ALONG WITH A SKETCH ANNEXTED THERETO.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 22/4/2013.** **EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2003 (2) KLT 903.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J** ## **---------------------------------------** ## **W.P.(C). NO. 20292 of 2013** ## **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 27[th ] day of August, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is the Panchayat who challenges Ext. P2 in so far as according to them no consultation was made by the RTA while issuing the impugned order. By Ext. P2 the Panchayat was directed to shift the bus stop. 2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions would submit that the Secretary RTA had to pass such an order on the basis of directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C). No. 4298/2013. In fact the above judgment does not indicate that an order should be passed in the matter whereas it only directs consideration of the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector. As per the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector produced as Ext. P5, the bus stop had to be shifted about 100 meters away from the present location to avoid accidents in the locality, since the present location of the bus stops on both ways is on the opposite sides. 3. The complaint of the Panchayat is that they have W.P.(C). NO. 20292 of 2013 **2** decided to shift the bus stop only 25 meters away from the existing bus stop whereas the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector indicates shifting of the bus stop by 100 meters. 4. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, the resolution at Ext. P6 had been intimated to the RTA as per letter dated 22.04.2013. But the same has not been considered by the Secretary nor an opportunity was given to the Panchayat to ventilate their grievance in the matter. 5. The question to be considered is whether there is any illegality in the order passed at Ext P2. Ext P2 decision had been taken on 06.03.2013 on the basis of judgment of this Court in W.P.(C). No. 4298/2013 and the direction issued by the STAT, Ernakulam in M.V.A.R.P. No. 507/2012. By virtue of the aforesaid orders the Secretary, RTA was directed to take a decision on the basis of the report submitted by the Motor Vehicles Inspector. The relevant provision under which the respondent authority could issue Ext. P2 order is clear from Rule 206 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') which W.P.(C). NO. 20292 of 2013 **3** ## reads as under:- ## **206. Stopping place for stage carriage.-** The State or Regional Transport Authority may, if no stopping place has been fixed for stage carriages in accordance with the provisions of any statute, fix such places for such carriages after consultation with such other authority as it may deem desirable. Such stopping places shall be indicated by means of notice boards. The driver of a stage carriage shall stop it at such stopping places when so required by any person wishing to alight or to enter but he need not stop the carriage for a person wishing to enter if the vehicle is already full. Halts for the purpose of setting down or taking up passengers shall be limited to the time reasonably necessary for such purpose. On routes along which stopping places have been fixed no driver of a stage carriage shall stop the vehicle at any place other than such stopping places except- (a) when failure to stop the vehicle would constitute an offence punishable under these rules or under any law for the time being in force, or (b) in the case of mechanical break down: Provided however that the provisions of this rule shall not apply to stopping of stage carriages to pick W.P.(C). NO. 20292 of 2013 **4** up or alight permit holder's employees on duty: Provided further that the stopping place of the Luxury Service and Super Deluxe Services shall be at the district headquarters and that of the Super Express Services shall be at the Taluk headquarters, with facilities for advance reservation. 6. Therefore by issuing Ext. P2, the respondent authority was only complying with the statutory obligation vested in it and as directed by this Court as well as the STAT as aforesaid. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in **Sukumaran Nair v. Secretary, Vazhoor Grama Panchayat [2003 (2) KLT 903]** to contend for the position that as per Rule 206 of the Rules the Panchayat has a say in the matter especially when the Panchayat authorities are well aware of the difficulties that are faced by the people in the locality and therefore once the Panchayat has informed the authorities about the location, it is the obligation of the Transport authorities to fix the W.P.(C). NO. 20292 of 2013 **5** halting places as requested by the Panchayat. I do not think that Rule 206 of the Rules lays down such a proposition. The said judgment came to be passed on a peculiar set of facts in which the Panchayat passed a resolution for shifting the halting places which was challenged by certain persons in the locality. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge was of view that the Panchayat has a say in the issue taking into consideration the requirement of the local public. But on a perusal of Rule 206 of the Rules, it does not lay down such a mandate. It clearly indicates that the State or the Transport Authority is the competent authority to fix the halting places in consultation with any other person or authority if it is desirable. Therefore the words 'if it is desirable' clearly indicates that the consultation called for is of a formal nature and it is not mandatory. However, in view of the fact that Panchayat has a contention that they were not heard in the matter it is always desirable in the interest of justice, to take into consideration the grievance of the general public in the locality. It is always better for the W.P.(C). NO. 20292 of 2013 **6** Transport authorities to consult the Panchayat as well to avoid unnecessary controversy in the issue of locating halting places. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon Ext. P6 resolution dated 16.04.2013 passed by the Panchayat to shift the existing bus stop 25 meters away from the present location. The said decision is seen communicated to the RTA on 22.04.2013. Apparently, a decision was already taken by the RTA on 06.03.2013. Therefore the decision of the Panchayat was not considered by the RTA in their meeting. 9. It is a settled proposition of law that when a direction is issued to Panchayat to implement a direction issued by the Transport Authority, necessarily the Panchayat ought to have been heard in the matter. In fact though it is contended by the learned Government Pleader that the Panchayat was heard on earlier occasions, there is no material to indicate that any notice has been issued to the Panchayat for the meeting held on 06.03.2013. That being W.P.(C). NO. 20292 of 2013 **7** the situation, I am of the view that the matter requires to be reconsidered after notice to the petitioner Panchayat. 10. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of as follows:- i) Ext. P2 is set aside. ii) The respondent authority is directed to reconsider the matter after issuing notice to the petitioner Panchayat and appropriate orders may be passed as early as possible and not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- **A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE** DCS