IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 20633 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.A.SHERIF, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. ABU SALIM, RESIDING AT BAHIHRA MANZIL, ILLICKAL, KILIROOR.P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRNSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KOTTAYAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2010 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.20635 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.20633 and 20635 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th August, 2010 JUDGMENT The question raised in both these writ petitions is whether the orders passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam evidenced by Ext.P1 in both cases is justified in so far as it has rejected the applications for fresh permit submitted by the respective petitioners. Since the question raised is identical, both these writ petitions are disposed of together. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20633/2010 had applied for the grant of a fresh permit in respect of a stage carriage vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-05/F 5670 on the route Kanjiram Jetty-Kottayam via. Illickal, Manikunnam and Karapuzha as town service. The total length is only 8 kms. and overlaps 0.7 kms. on the notified routes Ernakulam-Thekkady and Kottayam-Aluva respectively. 3. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20635/2010 had applied for the grant of a fresh permit in respect of the route Thiruvarppu-Kottayam via. Illickal, Thiruvathukkal, wpc Nos.20633 of 2010 & 20635 of 2010 2 Karapuzha and Pulimood Junction in respect of stage carriage vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-05/D 7347. The route length is only 8 kms. and overlaps 0.7 km of the notified routes Ernakulam-Thekkady and Kottayam - Aluva respectively. 4. As noticed above, by two separate orders evidenced by Ext.P1 in both the cases, the applications for permits submitted by the respective petitioners have been rejected holding that the overlapping of the proposed route on the notified route exceeds the maximum permissible limit. It is also noted that the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation has objected to the grant of the permits. 5. According to the counsel for the petitioner, as per the relevant notification evidenced in both the cases by Ext.P2, permits can be granted for the purpose of intersection, even when there is overlapping on the notified route. However, it is contended that the above crucial question as to whether the overlapping by the proposed routes in these cases are for the purpose of wpc Nos.20633 of 2010 & 20635 of 2010 3 intersection has not been considered by the first respondent. The counsel for the petitioner relies on Ext.P3 judgment of the Karnataka High Court, wherein it has been held that where a short traversing of the notified route within the village or town limit is necessitated for the purpose of intersection or for gaining access to a notified route, such overlapping can only be treated as 'intersection'. Particular reliance is also placed on Ext.P4 common order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam in M.V.A.R.P No.261 of 2009 produced in W.P. (C) No.20633 of 2010 to contend that overlapping on the notified route has been held to be permissible where it was necessary to gain access to the town and for entering the bus stand in the town. In view of the above decision, it is contended that the first respondent ought to have considered whether the overlapping was permissible or not. 6. Adv.Benjamin Paul who appears for the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation points out that in the notification Ext.P2, no overlapping is permitted and only wpc Nos.20633 of 2010 & 20635 of 2010 4 'intersection' is permitted. Since the decision of the Karnataka High Court was mainly concerned the overlapping, the said decision has no application to the facts of the present case. I have considered the rival contentions anxiously. 7. A reading of Ext.P1 order in both the cases, which are similarly worded, shows that the first respondent has not considered whether the overlapping constitutes an intersection or not. The first respondent has merely found that the overlapping exceeded the permissible limit and has therefore proceeded to reject the applications. In view of the contentions raised, regarding the manner in which the expression of intersection is to be understood, in the light of the judgment of this Court, the first respondent ought to have considered the above aspect of the matter. Since the first respondent is the authority empowered to consider the same, it is necessary that the first respondent considers this question and takes a decision thereon. 8. In the above circumstances, the impugned orders in both these cases evidenced by Ext.P1 respectively are wpc Nos.20633 of 2010 & 20635 of 2010 5 set aside. The first respondent is directed to consider afresh, the applications submitted by the respective petitioners in these cases in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months or by placing the same at the next meeting of the first respondent whichever is earlier, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the respective petitioners as well as to the KSRTC. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/