IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 20505 of 2006(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KSRTC REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR, SC, KSRTC SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR. 2. P.G.SURESH, PAARAKKAL HOUSE, MULANGU, THOTTIPPAL. SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL - R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 20505/06 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF RTA DT. 17.5.05. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN MVAA 436/2005 DT. 23.8.05. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF ERNAKULAM – THRISSUR SCHEME DT. 2.9.1967. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 20505 OF 2006-N ----------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner K.S.R.T.C challenges Ext.P2 decision of the S.T.A.T. The 2nd respondent herein applied for a permit on the route Thottipal – Thrissur, via Mulangu, Pallissery, Arattuvazhy Colony. Oorakam, Cherppu, Poochunnipadam, Thaikkattussery Overbridge, Ollur and Kuriachira. The said application was rejected by the R.T.A., Thrissur by Ext.P1 decision dated 17.5.2005. The R.T.A rejected the application, relying on three grounds. The first ground was that the route overlaps Ollur – Thrissur sector for about 8 kms on the notified route Ernakulam – Thrissur. The second ground was that the sectors Thrissur - Ollur and Oorakam - Poochunnipadam are well served. The third ground was that the vehicle offered was already covered by a permit. The S.T.A.T found that the finding that the route is well served, was not a ground to reject the application for grant of permit. It was also found that the two intermediate points of the route are not overlapped. The fact that the vehicle is covered by another permit, is WPC 20505/06 2 not a ground, in view of the decision in E.P.Alevikutty v. The Regional Transport Authority & Ors. [2005(1) KLJ 205], it was held. Based on the above finding, the S.T.A.T allowed the appeal by Ext.P2 judgment. Challenging the said judgment of the S.T.A.T., this writ petition was filed. I notice that only one ground is taken in the writ petition, that is, the route in question overlaps two intermediate points covered by Ext.P3 scheme. 2. Heard the learned standing counsel for the K.S.R.T.C. I find that all the three grounds taken by the S.T.A.T to allow the appeal are legal and valid. A route well-served is no longer a ground to reject the application for grant of permit, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India [AIR 1992 SC 443]. Even if no vehicle is offered, the applicant is entitled to get the permit, if he is otherwise eligible, in view of the decision in E.P.Alevikutty's case (supra). I notice that as per Ext.P3 scheme, the intermediate points of the route Ernakulam – Thrissur are Palarivattom, Kalamassery, Alwaye, Angamaly, Koratty, Chalakkudy, Potta, Aloor Junction, Vallakunnu, Pulloor, Irinjalakuda, Oorakom and Koorkancherry. Ollur WPC 20505/06 3 is not an intermediate point. Therefore, touching Ollur and Thrissur, which is one of the termini, does not offend the scheme. So, the judgment of the S.T.A.T does not suffer from any infirmity. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. 3rd October, 2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/