IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 31075 of 2010(H) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ABOOBACKER, SHAJI MANZIL, VAYYANAM P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLAM, PIN-691 001. 2. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPOATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR R2 BY ADV. SHRI P.BENJAMIN PAUL,SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 31075 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He applied for grant of regular permit on the route Kadakkal - Anchal. The said proposed route length is 15.5 kms. The said application of the petitioner was taken up for consideration by the first respondent and it was rejected as per Ext.P2. Obviously, the reason cited for rejection of the application is that the proposed route would offend Ext.P1 approved scheme. It is challenging the said order that this writ petition has been filed. 2. Relying on Ext.P3 judgment of this Court which was rendered on a decision reported in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Karnatak State Transport Appellate Tribunal(ILR 1996 KAR 770), the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there cannot be any overlapping in this case. In fact, it is only a case of intersection. However, it is to be noted that the petitioner himself would admit in the writ petition that there is WPC.31075/2010 : 2 : overlapping and that the overlapping exceeded the maximum limit. Referring to the said admitted facts, the petitioner would contend that the said overlapping is inevitable and therefore, in the light of Ext. P3 judgment the said overlapping which is inevitable has to be construed only as an intersection. 3. A statement has been filed in this writ petition by the respondents 1 and 2. As per the statement filed by the second respondent, no overlapping is provided in Ext.P1 notification and what is provided and permitted thereunder is only intersection on the notified routes. It is further stated thereunder that overlapping to the extent of 5% of the total length or 5Kms which ever is less is permitted only for the purpose of intersection. That apart, it is contended that inevitability cannot be a reason for justifying overlapping or for canvassing the position that it is, in effect, an intersection. In short, the contention of the second respondent is that the decision in Ext.P3 judgment is not at all applicable to the facts of this case. The statement filed by the first respondent, virtually endorse the stand of the second respondent. WPC.31075/2010 : 3 : 4. The rival contentions would essentially reveal the fact that there is overlapping, that too, in excess of the maximum permissible extent in Ext.P1 notification. But, the question to be decided is whether the said overlapping is to be considered as an intersection in the light of Exts.P3 and P4 judgments. Merely because, an overlapping exceeds the permissible limit an application should not be rejected without looking into the question whether it virtually constitutes only an intersection is the view consistently taken by this Court as is obvious from Exts.P3 and P4 judgments. However, Ext.P2 would reveal that such a consideration was not made while rejecting the application for regular permit submitted by the petitioner. In the light of Ext.P3 and P4 judgments which were rendered relying on judgments in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Karnatak State Transport Appellate Tribunal(Supra), I am of the view that the issue requires fresh consideration. In short, the question is whether the overlapping exceeding the permissible limit involved on the proposed route could be taken only as an intersection on the particular point. But, the aforesaid WPC.31075/2010 : 4 : question has to be considered in the light of Exts.P3 and P4 judgments. To enable the first respondent to consider the issue in the light of Exts.P3 and P4, Ext.P2 is set aside. It is made clear that before taking a decision on Ext.P2 the first respondent shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and also the second respondent. Such a decision shall be taken expeditiously, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that for the purpose of an effective consideration in the light of the above direction, if a fresh report is required, it will be open to the first respondent to do so. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge