IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 OP.No. 29870 of 2002(E) ----------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN -25, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY, K.A.MAKKAR KUNJU, AGED 59. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS D.T.O., ERNAKULAM. 4. A.C.THOMAS, CHAIRMAN, PANANGAD PASSENGERS ACTION COUNCIL, PANANGAD P.O., PIN - 682 506. 5. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TRANSPORT (B) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA FOR R1,R2.R4&R5 SRI.JOLLY JOHN FOR R4 SRI.A.V.XAVIER FOR R4 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO.29870/2002 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.50630/2002 IN O.P.NO.29870/2002 DISMISSED 14.11.2008. SD/-K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RECENT FARE REVISION NOTIFICATION DT.28.9.2001. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN MVARP NO.113/2000 DT.6.4.2001. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.7.8.2001. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REVISION MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS MVARP NO.396/01 (WITHOUT EXHIBITS) DT.1.11.2001. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN MVARP NO.396/01 (WITHOUT EXHIBITS) DT.2.2.2002. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE FARE LIST WITH EFFECT FROM 1.10.2001 ON THE ROUTE KUMBALAM - ALUVA. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE FARE LIST WITH EFFECT FROM 1.10.2001 ON THE ROUTE PANANGAD - ALUVA. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE FARE LIST WITH EFFECT FROM 1.10.2001 ON THE ROUTE CHATHAMMA - ALUVA. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE 4TH RESPONDENT DT.24.5.2002 IN M.V.A.R.P.NO.396/2001. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.V.A.R.P..NO.396/2001 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DT.5.9.2002. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,J. ---------------------------------------- O.P.No. 29870 OF 2002 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The writ petitioner is the Ernakulam District Private Bus Operators Association. They challenge Ext.P11 order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal directing to abolish the fare stage at Kamoth temple between Madavana and Panangad. The brief facts of the case are the following. 2. Ext.P1 is the sketch of the route which shows the distance between various fare stages of the route Ernakulam South - Panangad. The total route length is 13.4 kms. The fares prevailing at the relevant time was the one notified as per Ext.P2. That is 26 ps. for ordinary service. So, for the above distance, the fare would come to Rs.3.50 (3.48 rounded). If one fare stage is reduced on the route, the charge will come down to Rs. 3. The distance between Madavana and Kamoth temple is 2 kms and from Kamoth temple to Panangad is 1.6 kms. As per the fare stage notification, normally, the distance between two fare stages must be 2.5 kms, though Rule 2.11 permits that it O.P. No.29870/2002 2 can go up to 6.5 kms. The passengers felt that the fare stage between Madavana and Kamoth temple was unjustified. So, the Chairman of the Passengers Association, the 4th respondent herein, moved the R.T.A. for deletion of the fare stage at Kamoth temple. R.T.A. rejected it by decision dated 1.2.2000. As per the order of the S.T.A.T. in M.V.A.R.P. No.113/2000, the matter was reconsidered and the prayer of the passengers association was rejected by Ext.P4 order dated 7.8.2001. The matter was again carried in revision. The Tribunal by Ext.P11 order allowed the prayer of the passengers association and directed to abolish the fare stage at Kamoth temple between Madavana and Panangad. The said decision was taken comparing two other routes. The Tribunal noticed that in Madavana-Cheppanam route, there is no intermediate stop between Madavana and Cheppanam and likewise between Madavana and Kumbalam there is no intermediate point. So, the Tribunal felt that there is discrimination to passengers travelling on the route Ernakulam South - Panangad, especially, in the portion Madavana- Panangad. On the above basis, the relief sought by the passengers association was granted. O.P. No.29870/2002 3 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Tribunal misdirected itself in law, while taking the decision. One of the routes compared by the Tribunal is Ernakulam – Madavana-Cheppanam. There is no such route. That route is Ernakulam - Madavana - Cheppabam- Chathamma. Thus, between Madavana and Chathamma there is a fare stage at Cheppanam. The distance between Madavana and Chathamma will come to 4 kms. It has been wrongly taken as 3.7 kms by the Tribunal. Further, it is pointed out that when the route in question was opened for the first time, K.S.R.T.C. was operating and there was a fare stage at Kamoth temple. That fare stage was in existence ever since the private bus operators started operating in 1987. So, the interference with that fare stage by the Tribunal is unjustified. 4. The R.T.A. has filed a statement which fully supports the contentions of the petitioner. Though this original petition was admitted on 16.10.2002 and notice was served on the Chairman of the passengers association, it has chosen not to file any counter affidavit. O.P. No.29870/2002 4 5. Going by the route, it is noticed that from Ernakulam South to Vyttila though the distance is 3.4 kms, there is no intermediate stop. Same is the case with Vyttila and Kundannoor. The distance between those fare stages is 3.5 kms. Again between Kundannoor and Madavana, the distance is 2.9 kms with no fare stage in between. So, the passengers between Ernakulam South and Madavana stand to gain considerably. Apparently, to compensate the above loss, between Madavana and Panangadu one fare stage is allowed. If that is not allowed, the total fare collected for the route will come down to Rs.3. The same will substantially affect the operators. In this case, the disadvantage suffered, as a result of the fixation of the fare stage in this matter, is only the passengers between Kamoth temple and Panangad. But, in the substantial portion of the route the passengers stand to gain by this arrangement. If, the stage at Kamoth junction is abolished, other fare stages will have to be rearranged for establishing one more fare stage, so that, the operators get the fare of Rs.3.5 for a distance of 13.4 kms. So, I feel that the order of the S.T.A.T. is vitiated and it is causing failure of justice. The operators also O.P. No.29870/2002 5 have to survive, so that, they can render service to the passengers. Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act enables the C.A.T. to interfere, if the order of the R.T.A. is illegal or improper. In this case, it is seen that the Tribunal has acted itself as an appellate authority for the fixation of fare stages. So, the impugned order is vitiated. Further, the comparison made by the Tribunal with reference to the route Cheppanam- Ernakulam South is also fallacious. In fact, the route is Ernakulam-Chathamma, where there is a fare stage between Madavana and Chathamma. So, a decisive fact has been wrongly understood by the Tribunal and the same also vitiates the impugned order. In the result, Ext.P11 is quashed and Ext.P4 is restored. The Original Petition is allowed as above. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) ps O.P. No.29870/2002 6 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. =========================== O.P.NO.29870/2002 =========================== JUDGMENT DATED 14TH NOVEMBER, 2008 ==============================