High Court of Kerala
K.T.Thomas, J.
Damodaran - Appellant
Versus
District Collector - Respondent
O.P. No. 10862 of 1992
Decided On : 13-01-1993
bus stand - private buses - Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (R.207) - Kerala Panchayats (Landing Places, Halting Places and Cartstands) Rules, 1964 (R.8)
Fact of the Case:
The petition aims to ensure that private buses passing through Kakkanad park inside the bus stand established by Thrikkakara Panchayat. The bus stand remains unused, and the petitioners seek directions to the Regional Transport Authority to ensure buses stop at the bus stand.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bus stand was approved by the Regional Transport Authority, and as long as the approval subsists, every private bus operator is bound to stop at the bus stand. The court issued directions to the Regional Transport Authority and the Thrikkakara Panchayat to ensure compliance with the bus stand usage.
Issues: Non-usage of approved bus stand by private buses, inadequacies of the bus stand, and responsibilities of the Regional Transport Authority and Thrikkakara Panchayat.
Ratio Decidendi: As per R.207 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, once the approval of the bus stand is accorded by the Regional Transport Authority, every stage carriage operator is obliged to make use of that bus stand. The court also emphasized the responsibility of the Thrikkakara Panchayat to provide necessary amenities in the bus stand.
Final Decision: The court directed the Regional Transport Authority to issue instructions for buses to stop at the bus stand and the Thrikkakara Panchayat to improve the bus stand within specified timelines.
K.T. Thomas, J.
1. The aim of this Original Petition is to ensure that private buses passing through Kakkanad (Kochi) park inside the bus stand established by Thrikkakara Panchayat. At present none of the buses uses the said bus stand, instead they park on the road side in front of "Mar Athanatious High School" (situated just opposite to the rear gate of Civil Station, at Kakkanad). First petitioner is the Secretary of an Association formed by the merchants occupying the rooms in the shopping complex annexed to the said bus stand.
2. A shopping centre cum bus stand was constructed by Thrikkakara Panchayat. It was formally inaugurated on 25th May 1985. According to the petitioners, occupants of the rooms in the shopping complex were made to believe that all buses plying through Thrikkakara-Kakkanad would stop at the said bus stand. But the bus stand remains only in name since no buses stop there, according to the petitioners. A representation was made to 'the District Collector and later to the Minister for local administration in Kerala for directing the bus operators to stop at the said bus stand. Petitioners contend that as Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority the District Collector cannot abdicate his functions by not issuing instructions to the Regional Transport Officer to ensure that buses stop at the bus stand. Petitioners pray for a direction to the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam, to issue orders prohibiting parking of private buses at places other than the bus stand.
3. Notices of this Original Petition were served on the District Collector and Secretary to Regional Transport Authority, Thrikkakara Panchayat and also the General Secretary of the Ernakulam District Private Motor Transport Owners Association.
4. The Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority alone filed a statement in answer to the averments in the Original Petition. It is pointed out by him that Thrikkakara Panchayat constructed a bus stand after obtaining permission of the R.T.A. and that the Transport Authority approved . the site and after construction of the bus stand, R.T.A. (in its meeting held on 31st January 1989) approved the bus stand.. However, it is pointed out that, there is no insistence now that the buses should stop at the bus stand, since the District Private Bus Operators Association expressed their difficulty that due to inadequacy of lighting, water supply, lavatory and sanitary facilities they are unable to make use of the bus stand. The Panchayat, in spite of direction issued by the R.T.A. did not provide any additional lights or make any arrangements for the upkeep of the lavatories. The statement ends by expressing disinclination of the R.T.A. to compel the bus operators to ' stop buses at the said bus stand.
5. R.207 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules') says that where a local authority has provided and maintains a public stand for motor , vehicles with facilities for drinking water supply, lighting, latrine and waiting sheds for passengers and convenient parking places, the State or Regional Transport 'Authority may approve the use of that stand for the purpose of picking up or setting down passengers of public service vehicles. "Thereafter every vehicle shall make use of that stand". The rule enables the Transport Authority to revoke the approval if the facilities provided in the bus stand do not continue to exist. In this context, a reference to R.8 of the Kerala Panchayats (Landing Places, Halting Places and Cartstands) Rules, 1964 is of advantage. It empowers a Panchayat which has provided a halting place to prohibit any person from using any other place within such distance as may be determined by the Panchayat, as a halting place for stage carriages.
6. A reading of R.207 of the rules indicates that as long as approval of the bus stand accorded by the R.T.A. subsists, every stage carriage operator is obliged to make use of that bus stand. Ext. P1 is evidence to show that
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.