High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY v. CHERIYAN STEVEN, ANNIYIL HOUSE - WA No. 1588 of 2007  RD-KL 11944 (3 July 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWA No. 1588 of 2007()
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
1. CHERIYAN STEVEN, ANNIYIL HOUSE,
2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN,J.W.A. NO. 1588 OF 2007
Dated this the 3rd July, 2007
H.L.DATTU, C.J. This appeal arises out of the judgment delivered by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4959 of 2007, dated 4th April, 2007. The facts in brief are: The first respondent in this appeal was the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No.4959 of 2007. He was calling in question the orders passed by the Regional Transport Authority, dated 21st August, 2006.
2. The first respondent/petitioner was having a permit on
the route Pathanamthitta - Kattanam. He applied for variation
the permit before the Regional Transport Authority. The said
application was rejected by the
Regional Transport Authority by
its order dated 31st October, 2005. In that order, it has stated as
"Heard. Rejected since scheme violation and proposed portion is well served."
3. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Regional
Transport Authority, the first respondent
had carried the matter
before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam in case
M.V.A.A. No.45 of
2006. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal
and has directed the Regional Transport Authority to
W.A. NO.1588 OF 2007
variation in the permit as claimed by the first respondent subject
settlement of timings. The orders passed by the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal reads as under:
"The appeal is against the order declining variation by
2. The only ground of denial is overlapping of notified route.
3. The notified routes are Kayamkulam-Punalur and Kayamkulam-Kulathupuzha. Those routes fall under partial exclusion scheme. Even after proposed valuation the route will not cover a notified route. Hence no scheme violation will be resulted. Hence the dismissal is on a faulty ground. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and it is ordered to grant variation as claimed subject to settlement of timing."
4. After such remand, the Regional Transport Authority has passed
yet another order dated 21st August, 2006.
In that order, they reiterated
what they had said on 31st October, 2005. It is as under:
"1. No circumstances changed as per rule 145.
2. Violation of Supplementation scheme.
3. The proposed extension overlaps from Kattanam to Kayamkulam notified scheme of KSRTC. Kayamkulam Punalur Kulathupuzha. Hence variation rejected."
5. Aggrieved by this high-handed action of the Regional Transport Authority, the first respondent/petitioner was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.4959 of 2007.
6. This Court, after noticing the earlier orders passed by the W.A. NO.1588 OF 2007 Regional Transport Authority and the remand orders passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and further orders passed after such remand by the Regional Transport Authority, has come to the conclusion that the Regional Transport Authority has clearly violated the orders and directions issued by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal while disposing of the appeal filed by the first respondent. For the omissions and commissions while passing the aforesaid order, the learned Judge has thought it fit to impose an exemplary cost of Rs.15,000/-, payable by the State Government and with liberty to the State Government to recover the same from the Members of the Regional Transport Authority which took Ext.P3 decision.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned single Judge, the State is in this appeal.
8. Sri.M.R.Sabu, learned Senior Government Pleader, would submit that the learned single Judge was not justified in imposing the exemplary cost while allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent in the appeal.
9. The contention canvassed by the learned counsel, in our opinion, has no merit whatsoever. In the hierarchy of officers, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is the authority before whom the orders passed by the Regional Transport Authority would go by way of appeals. The Regional W.A. NO.1588 OF 2007 Transport Authority is expected to follow the orders and directions issued by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal faithfully. If, for any reason, the Regional Transport Authority was of the opinion that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was not justified in allowing the appeal and issuing certain directions, they should have questioned the same before an appropriate forum. Without questioning the said orders passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the Regional Transport Authority is not exepcted to repeat and reiterate what has been set aside by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Keeping all these aspects in the matter, in our view, the learned single Judge has rightly imposed an exemplary cost of Rs.15,000/-, payable initially by the State Government and thereafter to recover it from the Members of the Regional Transport Authority. We do not find any error in the judgment delivered by the learned single Judge, which would call for our interference. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) Chief Justice (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/ H.L.DATTU, C.J. &
K.T.SANKARAN, J.W.A.NO. 1588 OF 2007
3rd July, 2007
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.