IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37228 of 2008(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY LAW OFFICER, SRI,RANJITH JOSEPH. BY ADV. MR.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. 3. SMT.V.P.SUKUMARI, VALIYAPARAMBIL, NADAKKAVU P.O. ERNAKULAM. 4. SMT.MARIAMMA THOMAS, KUMBALAMTHANATHU HOUSE, AYARKUNNAM KOTTAYAM. 5. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM. R3 & R4 ADV. MR.P.DEEPAK MR.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.37228/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 7.12.07. P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 19.2.08 IN M.V.A.A. NO.91/2008. P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 19.2.08 IN M.V.A.A NO.93/08. P4:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 3.4.08. P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 3.9.08 IN WPC. NO.23207/08. P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 6.10.08 IN WPC. NO.29432/08. P7:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 26.11.08 IN RP. NO.1249/08 IN WPC. NO.23207/08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a):- COPY OF THE ROUTE ENQUIRY REPORT DT. 12.12.06. R3(b):- COPY OF THE SKETCH DT. 14.11.06. R3(c):- COPY OF THE AGENDA NOTES DT. 16.12.06. R3(d):- COPY OF THE PROCEEDING S OF THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 21.12.06. R3(e):- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 13.7.07 IN WPC. NO.14567/07. R3(f):- COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 5.12.07. R3(g):- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. NO.8458/08 DT. 25.3.08. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.37228 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P2 & P3 judgments of the STAT in MVAA Nos.91/2008 and 93/2008. 2. The facts of the case are that respondents 3 & 4 herein applied for two regular permits in the route Pulppally- Changanassery in respect of stage carriages bearing Regn.Nos.KL- 7/AT-3739 and KL-13/E-2448 as Super Fast/Fast Passenger/LSOS subject to counter signature by the sister RTAs. Ext.R3(a) and R3(b) are the route enquiry report and the sketch respectively. It was reported that the route length is 454 Kms. and the route applied of is an inter-district route covering 7 districts. It was also reported that there is no objectionable overlapping in Kottayam district. Ext.R3(b) sketch shows that there is no overlapping through the notified routes in Kottayam district. 3. Ext.R3(c) is the agenda for the meeting that was held on 21/12/2006. Accordingly, the matter was considered and as is seen from Ext.R3(d), the matter was adjourned on the ground that WP(C) No.37228/2008 -2- concurrence of the sister RTAs is mandatory for considering the application, and directing the Secretary to seek concurrence of the sister RTAs. Ext.R3(d) was challenged by the aforesaid respondents 3 & 4 before this Court in WP(C) No.14567/2007. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.R3(e) judgment dated 13/07/2007 directing the RTA, Kottayam to consider the application made by respondents 3 & 4 herein for grant of regular permit, if they are otherwise eligible for the same subject to counter signature by the sister RTAs. 4. The matter was accordingly placed before the RTA, Kottayam. Ext.R3(f) is the objection filed by the KSRTC. The KSRTC has given particulars of 11 notified routes. In so far as the Wayanad and Trivandrum-Payyannur schemes are concerned, KSRTC has stated that there is overlapping in the sector Kalpetta-Kozhikkode and Kozhikkode-Thrissur sectors respectively. Further, the KSRTC also stated that the route applied for was in violation of the draft notification dated 09/05/2007. 5. The matter was considered by the 1st respondent and by Ext.P1 proceedings, the application was rejected, taking the view that, in view of Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, permit WP(C) No.37228/2008 -3- cannot be granted as Ordinary service, and in view of Rule 2(ea) of the the Rules, permit cannot be granted as Fast Passenger service, and in view of Rule 2(uc) of the Rules, permits cannot be granted as Super Fast service. 6. Respondents 3 & 4 challenged Ext.P1 before the STAT by filing MVAA Nos.91/2008 and 93/2008. True, in these appeals, the KSRTC was not impleaded as a party. The STAT, by Exts.P2 & P3 judgments held that the route length being 454 Kms., permit cannot be granted as Super Fast service, but can be granted as Super Deluxe Service in view of Rule 2(ua) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. It was also held that depending on the route length, it is always open to the Primary Authority to grant a higher class permit than what was sought for by the applicant, provided the vehicle is operational for such service. On this basis, by Exts.P2 & P3, the appeals were allowed and Ext.P1 was set aside and the 1st respondent was directed to grant the regular permit applied for by respondents 3 & 4 subject to counter signature by the sister RTAs, as Super Deluxe Service, if the vehicles offered are fit for such higher class of service. It is these two judgments, which are sought WP(C) No.37228/2008 -4- to be challenged by the learned counsel for the KSRTC in this writ petition. 7. The learned counsel for the KSRTC raised three contentions: (1) That the KSRTC was not impleaded as a party in the appeals filed before the STAT, resulting in Exts.P2 & P3 judgments. (2) That there is objectionable overlapping pointed out in the objection, and neither the RTA nor STAT did consider the same. (3) That the draft notification scheme dated 09/05/2007 was in force and if so, permit could not have been granted. 8. So far as the impleadment of KSRTC in the Appeals is concerned, as already noticed, impleadment of the KSRTC is necessary only if there is scheme violation. In this case, as can be seen from Ext.R3(a) enquiry report and Ext.R3(b) sketch, there was material to the effect that in respect of the route applied for falling within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent, there is no objectionable overlapping. A reading of Ext.P1 also shows that the rejection of the application made by respondents 3 & 4 was also not on the ground of objectionable overlapping, accepting the case of the KSRTC. If that be so, none of the rights of the KSRTC is WP(C) No.37228/2008 -5- questioned in the appeals and hence I cannot find fault with respondents 3 & 4 in not impleading KSRTC in the appeals resulting in Ext.P2 & P3 judgments. 9. In so far as the objectionable overlapping now canvassed by the KSRTC is concerned, as already noticed in Ext.R3(f) objection filed by the KSRTC before the 1st respondent, although they have mentioned 13 particulars of the notified routes, violation pointed out is only in respect of Wayanad and Thiruvananthapuram- Payyannur schemes. These two violations certainly did not fall within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent and if there is any scheme violation as contended, it is always open to the RTA of the concerned district to consider the case of scheme violation, in terms of the provisions contained under the Motor Vehicles Act and also the impugned judgments. Therefore, these two scheme violations pointed out could not stand in the way of the 1st respondent. In that manner, the STAT considered the claim of respondents 3 & 4 and that cannot be faulted. 10. Yet another contention raised is that in view of the draft scheme notification dated 09/05/2007, according to the learned WP(C) No.37228/2008 -6- counsel for the KSRTC, it was impermissible to grant any permit and all that was possible was to grant temporary permit under Section 99(2) of the Act. This contention again cannot be accepted for the reason that going by Ext.R3(a) enquiry report, and Ext.R3(b) sketch, it can be seen that the report is to the effect that the route applied for does not fall within any of the notified routes. If that be so, this notification also cannot stand in the way of respondents 3 & 4. 11. Then it was contended that even going by the sketch produced, the route applied for is touching two intermediate points on the notified route and therefore grant is illegal. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is sought to be contradicted by the learned counsel for respondents 3 & 4 relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in K.S.R.T.C. v. The Regional Transport Authority and Others 1991(3) ILR (Kerala) 40, where it has been stated thus :- “The emphasis is on the intermediate points, and not on the intermediate places. Thus it is made clear by the Scheme that the notified area covers all the points between Quilon and Alleppey and between intermediate places specified in column (5) of Annexure 'A' to the Scheme. The clear effect of the scheme therefore is, the entire route Quilon-Alleppey being a nationalised WP(C) No.37228/2008 -7- route overlapping on this route between any two points has the effect of offending the Scheme. Therefore by merely avoiding Oachira as the terminus and fixing the District Border as the terminus, the Regional Transport Authority has not succeeded in preventing overlapping of the route between Kayamkulam and District Boarder.” Further, it was also held that what is prohibited is overlapping over the nationalised route and not inter-section of any nationalised route or touching a station as terminus. In my view, this judgment is a complete answer to the contention that is now raised. 12. On the whole, I am satisfied that the petitioner has not made out a case for interference. 13. Needless to say that as and when request for counter signature is made before the sister RTAs, the KSRTC will be issued notice and their objections will also be considered. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg