SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 33172

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
N. RAVEENDRAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 15119 OF 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ADV. SRI. ANIL KUMAR M. SIVARAMAN
For the Respondents: ADV. SRI. DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC

Public interest litigation must demonstrate genuine public grievances; unsupported allegations do not justify judicial intervention.

Headnote:(A) Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 - Section 3 - Public Interest Litigation regarding mismanagement of bus operations by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and Kerala Urban Road Transport Corporation (KURTC) - Allegations of idle buses, service cancellations post-COVID-19, and insufficient restoration efforts by KSRTC. (Paras 2-11, 12-34)

(B) Public Interest Litigation - Scope and nature - Courts may entertain petitions for the enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, especially for disadvantaged persons, but must discern genuine public interest from mere individual grievances. (Paras 20-22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a retired school teacher and public interest activist, alleges that KSRTC curtailed bus services and left 2800 buses idle post-COVID, affecting public transport availability. Petitioner seeks directives for bus restoration and accountability on mismanagement claims.

Findings of Court:
The court found no substantial evidence supporting the claims of mismanagement, noting that KSRTC's measures were taken in the light of pandemic-induced operational challenges.

Issues: Whether KSRTC’s operational decisions post-COVID-19 constituted mismanagement warranting judicial intervention.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that public interest litigation must focus on genuine grievances affecting public welfare, observing that mere allegations unsupported by substantial evidence do not merit judicial intervention.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of ksrtc's operation and challenges. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. petitioner's allegations against ksrtc. (Para 13)
3. ksrtc's defense and operational summaries. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
4. court's assessment of submissions and legal standards for issuing mandamus. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
5. conclusion that the writ petition is dismissed. (Para 34)

JUDGMENT

S. Manikumar, CJ

Instant public interest writ petition is filed for the following reliefs:

(i) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, commanding respondents 2 to 5, to restore the operation of all the buses of KSRTC and KURTC docked in various depots and yards by repairing the entire vehicles, within a time frame;

(ii) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 1 st respondent to initiate appropriate legal action against the officials responsible for dumping of 2800 buses in various yards by conducting a detailed enquiry;

(iii) Direct the transport and motor vehicle department to initiate stringent actions against the operators of parallel service of contract carriage vehicles and book them in accordance with law;

(iv) Grant such other appropriate writ, direction or order as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Brief facts for disposal of the writ petition are that; petitioner is a retired school teacher, and claims to be right to information activist of Kollam district. His grievance is that Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) has purposefully curtailed their services by canceling more than 1750 schedules per day, which forced the passengers, especially the employees, working in Government and private sector, to opt parallel services of contract carriage vehicles operating almost all the districts in Kerala.

3. Petitioner has stated that KSRTC is a Government undertaking, established in 1965, under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act , 1950. According to him, KSRTC is the successor of Travancore State Transport Department, established in 1938, by His Highness “Sree Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma” under the supervision and guidance of Mr. “Salter”, an efficient Engineer from England. Now, the KSRTC own 413 acres of land, 6380 buses, 93 depots and around 28000 permanent staffs. The sanctioned fleet strength of KSRTC is 5500 schedules per day with sanctioned driver and conductor strength of 14976 each.

4. Petitioner has further stated that after the second wave of COVID-19, the above fleet strength was purposefully curtained or reduced to 2800-3200 schedules per day, by keeping around 2800 buses idle, in various yards. During the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, there was a specific direction to protect the vehicles by starting the same daily with a short run. But, during the second wave, specific direction was issued to dock all the vehicles in various yards by removing battery and diesel.

5. Relying on Exhibit-P1 newspaper report dated 18.11.2021, petitioner has stated that all the tyres were removed and replaced with dummy tyres. Now the abovesaid vehicles were abandoned in various depots and yards. In addition to that, the buses decked due to minor repairs were also abandoned and turning into scrap. No sincere efforts have been made by the management to repair the same and restore the operation in its original sanctioned strength.

6. Petitioner has further stated that it is evident from Exhibit-P1 report that the value of the abandoned vehicles will come to around 700 Crores. However, KSRTC is moving ahead with tender notification, inviting from private operators to take their buses on long lease for operating super class permits.

7. Petitioner has further stated that Kerala Urban Road Transport Corporation (KURTC) is a subsidiary corporation of KSRTC, established in 2015, as per G.O.(Rt.) No.454/2014 dated 09.10.2014, to provid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top