IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7458 of 2011(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.V.NOUSHAD, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KARIMUGAL, VELOOR KARA, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADVS. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY- 682 030. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM-682 030. 3. DTO, KSRTC, ERNAKULAM-682 035. 4. THE HON'BLE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM-682 011. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF FOR R1 AND R2. STANDING COUNSEL SRI. BANJAMIN PAUL FOR R3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: kp P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 7458 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner applied for a temporary permit to operate a stage carriage on the route Thammanimattom-Kaloor via Kolenchery, Puthencruz, Karimugal, Tripunithura, Vyttila and M.G.Road. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’ for short) objected to the grant of permit on the ground that it overlaps a notified route. By Ext.P3 order passed on 12.6.2009, the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam rejected the application for temporary permit. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. By Ext.P6 order passed on 17.9.2009, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal rejected the appeal and upheld Ext.P3. Hence this writ petition challenging Exts.P3 and P6 orders. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the Corporation is not operating services on the route in question and therefore under the proviso to section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, private stage carriage operators are entitled to a temporary permit. 2. I heard Smt.R.Padmakumari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.M.A.Asif, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.P.Benjamin Paul, learned standing counsel appearing for the third respondent. A reading of Ext.P6 order indicates WPC No.7458/2011 2 that the petitioner’s application for temporary permit was rejected on two grounds. The first ground is that the route overlaps the Ernakulam- Muvattupuzha scheme, which is a complete exclusion scheme without exception clause. The second ground is that even if it is taken that the overlapping on the said route is not objectionable, the petitioner’s request cannot be granted in view of the supplementation scheme which was approved by the Government as per order dated 14.7.2009 for the reason that the overlapping is in excess of 5% of the route length. In such circumstances, as rightly held by the Tribunal, the petitioner cannot seek or be granted a temporary permit to operate a private stage carriage on the route in question. Further Ext.P6 order was passed on 17.9.2009. More than one year and five months have passed thereafter. There is no explanation whatsoever for the delay in challenging Ext.P6 order. Therefore on that ground also, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.7458/2011 3 WPC No.7458/2011 4