W.A.No.643 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:29184 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WA NO.643 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.10.2024 IN WP(C) NO.36918 OF 2024 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, FORT P.O, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695023 2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORTBHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023 3 THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023 4 THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, PF SECTION, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023 5 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023 6 THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOLLAM DEPOT, PIN - 691001 W.A.No.643 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:29184 7 THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THRISSUR DEPOT, PIN - 691001 BY ADVS. DEEPU THANKAN UMMUL FIDA LAKSHMI SREEDHAR VINEETHA BOSE CINDIA S. GAYATHRI G. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1 PRAMEELA.V, AGED 52 YEARS W/O. S. SANTHOSH KUMAR, SUPRENTENDENT, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOLLAM DEPOT (RESIDING AT AMARIYAZHIKATHI VEEDU, THIRUVANATHAPURAM P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691012 2 HAZEENA.P.M, AGED 52 YEARS SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOLLAM DEPOT (RESIDING AT HAZEENA MANZIL, KRALAPURAM, CHANDANATHOPPE.P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691014 3 DEEPA.R, AGED 47 YEARS SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOLLAM DEPOT (RESIDING AT KAILAS BHAVAN, ADICHANALLOOR. P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691573 4 SARASWATHY.R, AGED 47 YEARS ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOLLAM DEPOT (RESIDING AT NIRMALYAM, MALIBHAGOM, CHAVARA SOUTH, KOLLAM), PIN - 691584 5 SIMI JOHN AGED 38 YEARS ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOLLAM DEPOT (RESIDING AT SIJO BHAVANAM, MANGAD.P.O, KOLLAM), PIN - 691015 6 MINIMOL.S, AGED 35 YEARS ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT W.A.No.643 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:29184 CORPORATION, KOLLAM DEPOT (RESIDING AT SOWPANIKA, NJARACKAL, PERINADU.P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691601 7 JIJI.T, AGED 41 YEARS ASSISTANT STORE KEEPER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THRISSUR DEPOT-680001, (RESIDING AT VANI VILAS, AMBALAPADI, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM), PIN - 679328 8 BIGI JOSE, AGED 28 YEARS SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THRISSUR DEPOT-680001, (RESIDING AT CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, ALAGAPPANAGAR.P.O, KANJOOPADAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680302 9 ROSHAN.S, AGED 43 YEARS SPECIAL ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THRISSUR DEPOT, (RESIDING AT SRAMBIKKALKOTTARAM HOUSE, OTTAPALAM, PALALLAD), PIN - 679102 0 JINESH T. JOHNSON, AGED 44 YEARS SPECIAL ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THRISSUR DEPOT, (RESIDING AT THALAKKOTTUKARA HOUSE, OLLUKKARA.P.O, KUNNATHUMKARA, THRISSUR., PIN - 680655 11 MAHESH KUMAR A, AGED 52 YEARS JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THRISSUR DEPOT, (RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEEDU, MANIYAR.P.O,PUNALUR, KOLLAM)., PIN - 691333 12 NEETHA. V.G, AGED 44 YEARS ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THRISSUR DEPOT, (RESIDING AT NARANGALIL HOUSE, VIYYUR.P.O, THRISSUR)., PIN – 680010 ADV. SRI.K.P.JUSTINE KARIPAT FOR RESPONDENTS OTHER PRESENT: SRI. DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.No.643 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:29184 JUDGMENT Anil K. Narendran, J. The appellants are the respondents in W.P.(C)No.36918 of 2024, which was one filed by the respondents herein, who are the employees of the 1st appellant Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), working in various depots. They have filed that writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants to sanction and disburse the PF loan applied by them, within a time frame, as may be stipulated by this Court; and a declaration that they are entitled to PF loan without further delay. 2. By the impugned judgment dated 22.10.2024, the learned Single Judge disposed of W.P.(C)No.36918 of 2024, on the very first day on which it was listed for admission, by directing the appellants to consider the applications made by the writ petitioners for PF loan and disburse the amounts within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners. 4. As already noticed hereinbefore, the writ petition was disposed of on the very first day on which it was listed for W.A.No.643 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:29184 admission, without granting time to the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC to get instructions. The only direction in the impugned judgment is for consideration of the applications for PF loan made by the writ petitioners and to disburse the amounts within the time limit stipulated in that judgment. The impugned judgment is not one rendered without going into the merits of the case. 5. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145], a Three- Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. 6. In Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259] the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The Courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the W.A.No.643 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:29184 orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. 7. Therefore, the direction contained in the impugned judgment is one directing the competent authority in KSRTC to dispose of the applications for PF loan made by the writ petitioners, strictly in accordance with law, and disburse the eligible amounts, within the time limit stipulated therein. Though the impugned judgment is one dated 22.10.2024, the appellant has chosen to file this writ appeal only after the expiry of the time limit granted by the learned Single Judge for complying with the directions contained in that judgment. 8. After arguing for some time, the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC would submit that a further time of two months may be granted to the Corporation to sanction and disburse the eligible amount as per the applications for PF loan made by the writ petitioners. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners would submit that the respondents have no objection in this Court granting a reasonable time to the Corporation to comply with the directions contained in the impugned judgment. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, we W.A.No.643 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:29184 deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ appeal, by modifying the time limit granted in the impugned judgment dated 22.10.2024 of the learned Single Judge to consider the applications made by the respondents-writ petitioners for PF loan and to disburse the eligible amount, by two months from the date of this judgment. However, we deprecate in strongest words the conduct of the appellants in filing this writ appeal after the expiry of the time limit prescribed in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE pm