IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 29763 of 2011(U) -------------------------- MVAA.52/2011 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONERS: ----------------- 1. QUILON, DISTRICT PRIVATE BUS OPERATOR'S ASSOCIATION, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SRI.LAWARANCE BABU. 2. M.D.RAVI, ATHIRA, THEVALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV.SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM-691 001. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM-691 001. 3. BALACHANDRAN PILLAI, S/O.VASU PILLAI, RESIDING AT MOHANALAYAM, ASHTAMUDI P.O., KOLLAM-691 602. 4. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 & R2 BY SRI.P.I.DAVIS, SR.GOVT.PLEADER R3 BY SRI.P.DEEPAK R4 BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVITHAZHA, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JV WPC NO: 29763/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AGENDA RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 8.12.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 8.12.2010. P4: COPY OF THE DECISIONS DATED 22.6.2010 AND 12.8.2010 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.1.1962 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. P6: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 31.1.2011 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE STAT IN MVAA NO.52/2011 DATED 11.5.2011. P8: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATED DATED 4.1.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P9: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 14.7.2009 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. P10: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.90 OF 2007 DATED 3.3.2007 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. P11: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.477 OF 2007 DATED 23.3.2007 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. P12: COPY OF HE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.1702 OF 2004 DATED 16.9.2004 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. P13: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECRETARY R.T.A., KOLLAM P14: COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE AND THE REPORT OF THE FIELD OFFICER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE JV P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- WP (C) No.29763 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The first petitioner is the Quilon District Private Bus Operators Association represented by its General Secretary. The second petitioner is a member of the first petitioner association and a stage carriage operator. In this writ petition they challenge Ext.P7 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam in MVAA No.52 of 2011 whereby the State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the third respondent herein from Ext.P4 order declining to grant a fresh regular permit to him and directed the grant of the permit. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 2. The third respondent applied for a fresh regular permit to operate a stage carriage on the route Kureepuzha KSRTC Junction - Malanada (via) Neeravil, Kadavoor, Anchalummoodu, Kundara Mukkada, Mulavana, Bharanikkavu, Kakkakunnu, Patharam, and Chakkuvally. The total length of the route is 56.20 kilometers. The first petitioner association objected to the grant of a permit to the third respondent contending inter WP(C)No. 29763 of 2011 -2- alia that the proposed route overlaps the Kollam - Kumbalam complete exclusion scheme from Elampallur to Kundara Mukada. The Regional Transport Authority, Kollam that met on 8.12.2010 resolved to reject the application on the ground that the route overlaps the Kollam - Kumbalam complete exclusion scheme for a length of 700 metres, from Elampallur to Kundara Mukada. Ext.P3 is a copy of the proceedings issued in that regard. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the third respondent filed MVAA No. 52 of 2011 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. In that appeal he inter alia contended that the overlapping on the route covered by the complete exclusion scheme is an inevitable overlapping. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation was a party to the appeal. It was also one of the objectors to the grant of the permit. By Ext.P7 judgment delivered on 11.5.2011, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the grant of a fresh regular permit subject to settlement of timings. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal held that there is no other way to reach Kundara Mukada from Elampallur otherwise than through the portion of the route which overlaps the complete exclusion scheme and therefore it has to be treated as an inevitable intersection. Ext.P7 is under challenge in this WP(C)No. 29763 of 2011 -3- writ petition. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the finding of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal that the intersection from Kundara Mukada to Elampallur is an inevitable intersection is factually incorrect. Relying on Ext.P14 report submitted by the Motor Vehicles Inspector before the Regional Transport Authority it is contended that the Motor Vehicles Inspector had not reported that the intersection is an inevitable intersection and therefore the Regional Transport Authority was perfectly right in proceeding on the basis that the route objectionably overlaps the Kollam - Kumbalam complete exclusion scheme. Relying on the sketch accompanying Ext.P14 report, it is contended that there are alternate routes from Kundara Mukada to Elampalloor and therefore the finding of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal that the portion of the route from Kundara Mukada to Elampallur is an inevitable intersection cannot be sustained. 4. Per contra, Sri.P.Deepak, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent contended that when another applicant (Sri.A.Salim) applied for a fresh grant to operate a stage carriage service on the route Kundara, Hospital Junction - Muttathumoola Kadavu, via Punnamukku, Elampallur, Vellimmon Junction, Thannikkamukku, Anchalummoodu and C.K.P.Junction, WP(C)No. 29763 of 2011 -4- the General Secretary of the first petitioner association objected to it, contending that a portion of the route namely from Elampallur to Punnamukku is not wide enough to accommodate new stage carriage services and that based on that objection the said application was rejected. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the General Secretary of the first petitioner association who had raised an objection that the road from Elampallur to Punnamukku is not wide enough to accommodate new stage carriage services cannot be heard to contend that a portion of the route in respect of which the permit was sought viz. from Kundara Mukkada to Elampallur having a length of 700 metres is not an inevitable intersection. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. Apart from vaguely alleging that there is an alternate route to proceed from Kundara Mukkada to Elampallur, the petitioner has not described the alternate route with clarity. Ext.P14 sketch does not disclose the alternate route from Kundara Mukkada to Elampallur. The petitioner has also not chosen to give the length of the alternate route. It is also relevant to note that a portion of the route having a length of 2.50 kms is covered by the Kollam - Pampa scheme which is not a complete exclusion scheme. In view of WP(C)No. 29763 of 2011 -5- the provisions contained in G.O.(P) No.42/2009/Trans. dated 14th July, 2009 as the overlapping is not in excess of 5% of the total route length namely not in excess of 2.80 kilometers a permit can be granted to the petitioner. The Kollam Kumbalam complete exclusion scheme is a 1962 scheme. The Kollam - Pampa scheme is a 2009 scheme. Necessarily therefore by implication it will have to held that the Kollam Kumbalam total exclusion scheme stands modified to the extend covered by the Kollam Pampa scheme. Therefore even assuming that there is an alternate way to proceed from Kundara Mukkada to Elampallur it cannot be stated that there is a complete exclusion on the 700 meters portion of the route from Kundara Mukkada to Elampallur under the Kollam Kumbalam scheme. Therefore for that reason also, I am of the opinion that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was perfectly right in directing the grant of the permit. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Rkc //true copy// PA to Judge.