IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10306 of 2010(K) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- DAJI TOMY, THEKKEVAYALIL RPC P.O., MUNDAKAYAM. BY ADV. MR.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SHINCE JOSEPH, TAKIDIPURATH, MELORAM.P.O. PERUVANTHANAM. ADVS. MR.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC FOR R4 MR.M.A.FAYAZ FOR R5 MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.10306 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st March, 2010 (C.R) J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an existing stage carriage operator on the route Thekkemala-Kuzhumavu(via) Mundakayam. She is conducting services on the basis of a permit issued in respect of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-5/S4892. She has filed this writ petition challenging an order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal directing the grant of a regular permit as sought for to the fifth respondent, subject to settlement of timings. The fifth respondent had applied for a regular permit on the route Meloram-Valliyamkavu, via Valamannapura, 35th Mile, Mundakayam, Thekkemla and Valliyamkavu. The said application was placed before the Regional Transport Authority on 15.3.2008 and was objected to finding that the route proposed by the petitioner overlaps the notified route Ernakulam-Thekkady for a distance of 2.5Kms. Against the said decision, the 5th respondent filed MVAA No.221 of 2008 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. 2. According to the petitioner, it was submitted by the W.P.(c)No.10306/10 : 2 : 5th respondent before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal that the overlapping noticed by the Regional Transport Authority was inevitable for the purpose of reaching Mundakayam Town and therefore, the overlapping should be treated as an unavoidable intersection. This submission, according to the petitioner, is not proved. The petitioner submits that the vehicles proceeding from Meloram have to deviate from 35th Mile to Valliyamkavu and it is not necessary to proceed to Mundakayam for proceeding to Valliyamkavu. However, such submission was made before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, without any bona fides. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal accepted the said contention and set aside the decision of the RTA which is Ext.P2. Thereafter, the matter has been remanded to the RTA for consideration of the matter afresh. The petitioner also submits that there is another route Meloram to Mundakayam (via) Valamannapura, Kokkayar and Koottikkal, which does not overlap the notified route from 35th Mile to Mundakayam. The above relevant facts are also alleged to have been suppressed from the STAT by the 5th respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the STAT has W.P.(c)No.10306/10 : 3 : remanded the matter without calling for the records or perusing them. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the judgment of the STAT is liable to be set aside. 3. The learned senior Government pleader, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner is another operator who is conducting services on a similar route. Being an existing operator and a competitor of the fifth respondent, he is not a person aggrieved by Ext.P3 judgment. For the above reasons, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge Ext.P3 judgment. It is also pointed out that the STAT has considered the findings of the RTA and has found that the overlapping is inevitable to reach Mundakayam. Therefore, it is submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the order of remand of the STAT. 4. I have heard Adv. Shri. O.D. Sivadas who appears for the petitioner as well as the learned senior Government Pleader. 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner is another operator conducting service on a similar route. He has no right to object to the grant of a permit to another operator on a similar route, as held by this court in various W.P.(c)No.10306/10 : 4 : decisions. The only aspect with respect to which he is entitled to object is regarding the timings that are to be allotted to the said operator. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Binu Chacho Vs. R.T.A., Pathanamthitta (2006 (2) KLT 172) submits that an existing operator can, in certain situations, challenge even the grant of a permit to another operator. Particular reliance is placed on the following observations of this court. “.................... However, it may not be proper or expedient to restrict the scope of the words “person aggrieved” to settlement of timings only, though under the scheme of the Act, existing operators may have in the normal course, legal grievance against settlement of timings only. We, therefore, do not rule out any other grievance of a similar nature which would tilt the balance in favour of one operator and against another as a consequence of orders issued by R.T.A. or S.T.A. The applicant is required not only to establish that the order impugned suffers from illegality or impropriety of a substantial nature but also has to discharge the burden to satisfy the Tribunal that he has a legal grievance against that order, and therefore, is a person aggrieved." 6. The question in the above case was whether an existing operator had the right to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the W.P.(c)No.10306/10 : 5 : STAT on the sole ground that the grant of permit to the opposite party prejudicially affected his right. Having considered the question in the light of the decisions applicable, it has been held by the Full Bench that an existing operator can object only regarding the settlement of timings and cannot object to the grant of permits. However, in exceptional circumstances, the Full Bench recognised the right of an existing operator to challenge a grant of permit in the passage that has been quoted above. Though it is vehemently pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 5th respondent has played fraud on the STAT by suppressing the fact that there was overlapping on the notified route and further suppressing the fact that there is an alternative route available with no overlapping, I do not think that any fraud has been played by the 5th respondent as alleged. There is no evidence or material regarding the alternative route that is alleged to be existing, without any overlapping. The learned Government Pleader relies on the decision reported in Mithilesh Rani Vs. R.T.A., Dehradun [AIR 1994 SC 2229] to contend that the petitioner has no right to object to the overlapping on a notified W.P.(c)No.10306/10 : 6 : route. The petitioner has not made out any legal grievance as stipulated by the Full Bench in paragraph 28 of the said judgment. Since the petitioner has not only to establish that the order impugned suffers from an illegality or impropriety of a serious nature but also has to satisfy that he has a legal grievance against the order, I do not think that there are grounds to interfere with the impugned order. For the forgoing reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) acd