IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 OP.No. 10582 of 2001(I) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.V.VASUDEVAN NAIR, AGED 54 YEARS. LAKSHMI BUS SERVICE, NEAR BUS STAND, KANNUR-1. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI MATHEW VADAKKAN, FOR R1 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/09/2008 ALONG WITH OP NO. 10698 OF 2001, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 10582 of 2001(I) CMP 16882 OF 2001 DISMISSED. 5.9.2008. ID/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS - P1 - TRUE COPY OF ENDORSEMENT DT. 20.12.99 ISSUED BY THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P2- TRUE COPY OF ENDORSEMENT DT. 31.1.2000 ISSUED BY THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P3 - TRUE COPY OF ENDORSEMENT OF COUNTER SIGNATURE OF RENEWAL OF PERMIT DT. 30.12.99 ISSUED BY THE ASST. SECRETARY, KSTA, BANGALORE. P4 - TRUE COPY OF ENDORSEMENT OF RENEWAL OF PERMIT DT. 1.9.98 ISSUED BY THE KSTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P5 - TRUE COPY OF ENDORSEMENT OF COUNTER SIGNATURE OF RENEWAL OF PERMIT DT. 10.9.98 ISSUED BY THE ASST. SECRETARY, KSTA, BANGALORE. P6 - TRUE COPY OF ENDORSEMENT OF REPLACEMENT OF VEHICLE DT. 31.1.2000 ISSUED BY THE KSTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P7 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE STA, KERALA, TRIVANDRUM DT. 20.6.94. P8 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE STA, KERALA, TRIVANDRUM DT. 20.6.94. P9 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN CMP 22680/94 IN OP 12950/94-N OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, DT. 9.9.94. P10 - TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP 12950/94-N DT. 5.1.99 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. P11 - TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT. 4.4.99 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P12 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 11.10.2000 ISSUED BY THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- O.P. 10698 & 10582 of 2001 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 JUDGMENT In these two original petitions the challenge is against Ext.P12 proceedings of the STA rejecting the representations submitted by the petitioners. 2. Petitioners are interstate stage carriage operators. By order dated 20.6.1994, relying on the provisions of the Finance Bill, 1993, which provided for the levy of tax on standing passengers at the rate of Rs.50/-, the STA exercising its power under Rule 267(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, decided to fix standing passengers in all stage carriages. When communications were issued to all RTOs. for taking consequential action, the order was challenged before this Court in O.P. 10974/1994. That original petition was disposed of in the case of Devee Motors v. State of Kerala - 1996 (1) KLT 755. Though contentions on the validity of the decision taken by the STA O.P. 10698 & 10582 of 2001 2 were all rejected, the learned Judge issued the following directions:- “5. Ext.P1 order was passed as early as on 20.6.1994 and its implementation was kept in abeyance in view of the interim orders passed by this Court in the case of the petitioners. In view of the discussion herein before, I direct the State Transport Authority to afford a personal hearing to the petitioners before Ext.P1 order is implemented against them. The petitioners are consequently directed to file representations before the State Transport Authority within a period of one month from today setting out their grievances. If such representations are filed within the time stipulated, the State Transport Authority is directed to consider and dispose of them on merits and in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representations. After hearing the petitioners, if any amendment is found to be necessary, the State Transport Authority is directed to make consequential amendments in the order impugned or pass fresh orders as deem fit and proper. O.P. 10698 & 10582 of 2001 3 The interim order staying the implementation of Ext.P1 is kept in force till such decision is taken by the State Transport Authority, in the case of the petitioners in these original petitions.” 3. Subsequently when the original petitions filed by these petitioners as OP Nos.12950/94 and 13748/94 came up for consideration, those cases were also disposed of by Ext.P10 common judgment, giving them the benefit of the aforesaid direction as contained in the judgment in the case in Devee Motors v. State of Kerala - 1996 (1) KLT 755. On the strength of the liberty so given, they filed Ext.P11 representations. The representations were considered by the STA and the petitioners were also heard in the meeting held on 12.11.1999. Thereafter the STA passed Ext.P12 order rejecting the representations and those orders are produced in these cases as Ext.P12 and are under challenge. 4. As already noticed, all contentions on the validity of O.P. 10698 & 10582 of 2001 4 the decision of the STA stands rejected by this Court in Devee Motors' case, which has been followed in Ext.P10 judgment, referred to above and therefore the contentions raised in these writ petitions on the merits are concluded against the petitioners. However, the limited examination that was done by the STA as per Ext.P10 judgment in these cases is that it should take note of the fact that the implementation of the decision taken by the STA on 20.6.1994 was kept in abeyance pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court and therefore any hardship will be caused by the sudden implementation of the decision following the disposal of the original petitions. It is this issue which has been considered by the STA in Ext.P12 and the STA has rightly held that in view of the Finance Act which provided for the levy of tax on the standing passengers, the same had to be implemented. I do not find anything illegal in the reasoning adopted by the STA in Ext.P12. The STA was only implementing the decision as O.P. 10698 & 10582 of 2001 5 contained in the Finance Act of 1993 and therefore there is absolutely no merit in the representations filed by the petitioners. The writ petitions are only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-