IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 8442 of 2008(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- KERALA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SHRI.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC,KSRTC, SHRI P.BENJAMIN PAUL,SC, KSRTC. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE. 3. K. SHAMSUDHEEN, CHENGAL HOUSE, POST KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. R1, R2 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.M. MANOJ, R3 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2011,ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 8460 OF 2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.8442/2008-F: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE DECISION DT. 25/04/07 OF R.T.A, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P.1.A: THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY K.S.R.T.C BEFORE THE R.T.A, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION DT. 01/09/07. EXT.P.2.A: COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE ROUTE. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 13/09/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE RENEWAL OF THE PERMIT GRANTED BY THE R.T.A, KOZHIKODE DTD. 30/11/2010. EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE PERMIT CURTAILING THE PORTION FROM PALAKKAD TO MALAMPUZHA. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NOs. 8442 & 8460 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011 JUDGMENT The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, the common petitioner in these writ petitions has filed these writ petitions challenging Ext.P3 order passed by State Transport Appellate Tribunal, copies of which are produced as Ext.P3 in the writ petitions. The petitioner has also prayed for a declaration that the third respondent is not entitled to the grant or renewal of a permit to operate stage carriages on the route Kozhikode - Malampuzha. The brief facts are as follows. 2. The third respondent is an existing stage carriage operator. He is operating the two stage carriages viz, stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-11/R 6489 on the route Kozhikode- Malampuzha (via) Malappuram, Perinthalmanna, Mannarkad, Palakkad and Kadukkamkunnu and stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-11/Q 1501 on the route Kozhikode - Malampuzha (via) Feroke, New Bridge, Kondotty, Malappuram, Perinthalmanna, Mannarkad, Olavakkode and Palakkad. Shortly Wpc Nos.8442 & 8460/2008 2 before the validity of the permits granted to him were to expire, the third respondent moved the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad for renewal of the permit. By Ext.P1 order passed on 25.4.2007, the Regional Transport Authority declined to renew the permits on the ground that the route has a length exceeding 140 kms and therefore the petitioner cannot operate an ordinary service on the route. The Regional Transport Authority also noticed that the petitioner herein has objected to the grant of the permit. Aggrieved thereby, the third respondent filed separate revision petitions before the State Transport Appellate Authority (STAT). By Ext.P3 order which is impugned in these writ petitions, the STAT set aside Ext.P1 order with the observation that it is for the primary Regional Transport Authority viz RTA, Palakkad to consider on the class of service depending on the route length. The RTA, Kozhikode was accordingly directed to grant prior concurrence without prejudice to the right of the primary authority, viz RTA, Palakkad to decide on the nature of the service depending on the route length and after considering the objection if any of the KSRTC regarding overlapping on the notified route. Hence this writ petition. Wpc Nos.8442 & 8460/2008 3 3. I heard Sri P.Benjamin Paul, learned standing counsel for the KSRTC and Smt. Lakshmi Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel on both sides brought to my notice that the third respondent had sought and obtained curtailment of the route and that he is no longer operating on the sector Palakkad - Malampuzha. In such circumstances, it was conceded at Bar that the route has a length below 140 kms and therefore the third respondent can operate the stage carriage as limited stop ordinary service. Therefore, the KSRTC cannot now object to the renewal of permit on the ground that third respondent cannot operate the stage carriage as an ordinary service. That takes me to the question whether the third respondent is entitled to renewal of the permit for the reason that he operates along a nationalised route. As regards that aspect of the matter, it is not in dispute that the scheme notified by the Government under section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, permits existing operators who have been granted permits prior to 25.6.2006 to continue to operate their service until the permits issued or renewed expires Wpc Nos.8442 & 8460/2008 4 or the KSRTC starts service whichever is earlier. In the instant case, permits were issued to the third respondent prior to the cut off date. His application which was rejected by the RTA, Kozhikode was one for prior concurrence for renewal of the permit by the primary RTA, viz RTA, Palakkad. In such circumstances, as the scheme itself permits existing stage carriage operators to continue to operate their stage carriages until the validity of the permits expire or till the KSRTC commences operation on the route, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot object to renewal of the permit. I accordingly hold that no grounds have been made out warranting interference with the impugned order. The writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE lgk