IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 33206 of 2008(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SONEY SUNNY, THOTTICHIRAYIL HOUSE, VAIKOM.P.O, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.INEES RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTORITY,ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON 06/02/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.33206/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE STAT INMVAA NO.266/2007 DTD.4.6.2007. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WPC NO.37449/2007 DT 27.2.2008. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER VALID FROM 25/6/2008 TO 24.6.2013 IN RESPECT OF S.C.KL- 5/N-2845. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE STAT IN MVAA NO.439/2008 DT.18.9.08. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY CIRCULATION U/R 10 DTD. 21.10.2008 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR COUNTER SIGNATURE. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT NOTITICATION ISSUED BY GOVT. OF KERALA DTD.15.9.2008. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT FILED BY THE PETITIOENR DATED 27.9.2008. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXT.P7 DT.27.9.2008. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.22.10.2008 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT. EXTS.OF R3 EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 13.11.2006 IN WPC NO.29706/2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 33206 OF 2008 (C) ==================== Dated this the 6th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner applied for the grant of regular stage carriage permit on the route Kottayam-Ernakulam vide his application dated 31/10/2002. By order dated 9/8/05, the application was rejected on the ground of objectionable overlapping over the Kottayam-Ernakulam notified route. Petitioner filed MVAA No.782/06 and the STAT allowed the petitioner to make a modified proposal to the RTA. Though the route was modified as Kottayam-Kakkanad, that was also rejected by the RTA, Ernakulam by order dated 9/3/2007 on the ground of overlapping on the notified route of Ernakulam-Thekkady. That order was also challenged in MVAA No.266/07. The appeal was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment, setting aside the order of the RTA and directing to grant permit. 2. Subsequently on 25/6/08, Ext.P3 permit was issued by the RTA. Thereupon the petitioner applied for counter signature of the 1st respondent in respect of the portion of the route lying in Ernakulam District. That again was rejected by order dated 19/7/08 on the ground of overlapping on the notified route as per notification dated 6/5/2008. An appeal was filed as MVAA No.439/08 and by Ext.P4 judgment, in view of WPC 33206/08 :2 : the judgment of this Court in Vijayan P.K and others v. Government of Kerala (2008(2) KLJ 934), the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Again the matter was considered by the 1st respondent and counter signature was rejected on the ground that the route from Puthencavu to Tripunithura overlaps Ernakulam-Thekkady route as per Ext.P6, the draft notification dated 15/9/08. It is stated that as per Clause 4 of the notification, no permit shall be issued afresh under any circumstances in respect of any route covered by the notification or any portion thereof. 3. Meanwhile, the petitioner was operating in the route Poothotta to Kakkanad in continuation of his regular permit in Kottayam District on the strength of temporary permits. It is stated that Ext.P7 is an application made for the issue of a temporary permit, but however, the same was rejected by the 2nd respondent, as per Ext.P9 order, referring to Clause 4 of Ext.P6 notification dated 15/9/2008. It is challenging Exts.P5 and P9 the writ petition is filed. 4. As far as Ext.P5 is concerned, the order is dated 21/10/2008 and reliance is placed on Ext.P6 notification dated 15/9/2008. As already noticed, the application made by the petitioner for the modified route was WPC 33206/08 :3 : ordered to be allowed by Ext.P1 judgment of the STAT. It was on that basis that Ext.P3 permit was issued to the petitioner on 25/6/2008. When counter signature of Ext.P3 permit is applied for, the position atleast on the date of Ext.P3 permit, viz., 25/6/2008 should be the relevant date to reckon the eligibility of the petitioner for counter signature. 5. On the other hand, in this case, counter signature has been declined on the basis of Ext.P6 notification dated 15/9/2008. In my view, the 1st respondent was not justified in declining counter signature to Ext.P3 permit relying on a subsequent development namely Ext.P6 notification. Further, if necessary, it is always open to KSRTC to invoke proceedings under Rule 242 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules to seek cancellation of the permit. For these reasons, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P5 and I do so. 6. Petitioner is also challenging Ext.P9 by which his application for temporary permit for the sector Poothotta to Kakkanad was declined in view of Ext.P6 notification. Ext.P6 as already noticed is only a draft notification. If that be so in view of the provisions contained in Section 99 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Authority is at liberty to grant temporary permit to an operator. Therefore, Ext.P9 also cannot be sustained. WPC 33206/08 :4 : 7. The writ petition therefore will stand disposed of with the following directions. (1) The 1st respondent shall reconsider the request of the petitioner for counter signature to Ext.P3 permit in the light of the observations made above. (2) Orders shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. (3) The 2nd respondent shall pass fresh orders on Ext.P7 application made by the petitioner for temporary permit and orders shall be passed at any rate within 4 weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (4) Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp