IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2009 / 22ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 2640 of 2009(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- T.SATHYANARAYANAN,S/O.THANKAVELU, AGED 74,PROPRIETOR, MARUTHI MOTOR SERVICES, NO.299,VINAYAMARGA,SIDDARTHA NAGAR, MYSORE -570001 BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, S.T.A.TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE D.T.O.KSRTC TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.SANILKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.2640/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER DT 27.9.76 IN AVART NO.129/1975 OF STAT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DT 26.6.76 ISSUED BY THE GOVT.OF KERALA. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE TIMINGS WITH RESPECT TO S/C KA 09 D 3366 OWNED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE TIMINGS WITH RESPECT TO S/C KA 09 D 99 OWNED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.8157/76 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 28.8.2008 OF THE STA, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION, NUMBERED AS MVARP NO.388/08 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE STAT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT 15.6.07 ISSUED BY THE STA, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION, NUMBERED AS MVARP NO.13/2008 FILED BY THE KSRTC BEFORE THE STAT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT 14.5.92 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT 7.6.05 PUBLISHED in the KERALA GAZETTE. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF the COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIOENR TO MVARP NO.13/2008. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT WITH RESPECT TO S/C KA 09 D 3366 OWNED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT S/C KA 09 D 99 OWNED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF the ORDER IN MVARP NO.13/2008 PASSED BY THE STAT, ERNAKULAM. WPC NO.2640/09 -2- EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MVARP NO.388/08 PASSED BY THE STAT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P17: TRUE COPY FO THE ENDORSEMENT OF VARIATION GRANTED BY THE SECRETARY, KSTA, DT 23.7.2007. EXT.P18: PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.CT/STA-5/RENL-6/2009-10 DT 17.04.2009 OF THE JCT-SECRETARY, KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE. EXT.P19: PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.CT/STA-5/RENL-6/2009-10 DT 17.4.2009 OF THE JCT-SECRETARY, KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE. EXT.P20: PHOTOCOPY OF ENDORSEMENT OF RENEWAL OF PERMIT VIDE NO.CT/STA-5/RENL-6/2009-10 DT 17.4.2009 OF THE JCT-SECRETARY, KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE. EXT.P21: PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION FOR ENDORSEMENT/EXTENSION OF VALIDITY OF PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EBFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 24.4.2009. EXT.P22: PHOTOCOPY OF RECEIPT NO.099274A DT 24.4.2009 TOWARDS REMITTANCE OF RS.5400 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P23: PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON29.5.2009. EXT.P24: PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM VIDE NO.D2/10009/STA/2009 DT 9.6.2009. EXTS. OF R3 EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 15/1/2009 INWA NO.851/07. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 2640 OF 2009 (L) ===================== Dated this the14th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an existing operator on the inter-state route Mysore-Calicut since 1955. He is referring to Ext.P1, an order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam in MVARP No. 129/75, which states that he has been operating since 1955. 2. While so, Ext.P2 inter-state agreement was executed between the State of Kerala and Karnataka on 30/6/76. Appendix 1 to the agreement gives the particulars of the Karnataka based vehicles plying in Kerala. Sl.No.16 is the route Mysore to Kozhikode via T.N.Pur, Chamarajanagar, Gundlupet, and the number of single trips are shown as two. Petitioner submits that the existing operator mentioned therein is himself, as he has been operating on the route since 1955. He has also produced as Exts.P3 and P4 the timings of both the aforesaid trips, one leaving Mysore at 8.00 a.m and the other at 9.30 a.m. 3. It is stated that the permit was being renewed from time to time, and that, while so in 1992, petitioner sought WPC 2640/09 :2 : extension of the route from Calicut to Guruvayoor. That was granted and the petitioner was operating on that basis. It was while so that in 1999, the Apex Court rendered judgment in Aswani Kumar v. RTA Bikaner (1999(8) SCC 364) reiterating the position that inter-state operators like the petitioner should confine to the original route. Petitioner therefore applied for curtailment of the extended sector and the application was allowed by the Karnataka State Transport Authority. 4. However, taking the view that the route in question i.e, route Mysore-Guruvayoor was outside Ext.P2 inter-state agreement, counter signature was rejected by the Kerala State Transport Authority. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Ext.P7 revision before the Tribunal numbered as MVARP No.388/08. It is stated that as the permit was expiring in July 2009, he sought renewal of the permit upto Calicut, which was granted by the Karnataka State Transport Authority. Counter signature was granted by the Kerala State Transport Authority as per Ext.P8, subject to payment of compounding fee. 5. Against Ext.P8, KSRTC filed Ext.P9 revision before the WPC 2640/09 :3 : Tribunal numbered as MVARP 13/08. The revisions were heard and by Ext.P15 order, MVARP No.13/08 filed by the KSRTC was allowed and following the said order, by Ext.P16, MVARP No.388/08 filed by the petitioner was rejected. It is thereupon that the writ petition was filed seeking to quash Exts.P15 and P16 orders. 6. A reading of Ext.P15, the order in MVARP NO.13/08 show that after holding that the case of the petitioner was covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Aswani Kumar's case, the Tribunal considered the contention of the petitioner that his route was covered by Appendix I to Ext.P2 in the following terms: “6. Turning to the contentions of the 3rd respondent, it has to be stated at the outset that the permit in respect of which the counter signature was ordered by the 1st respondent, is not covered by any of the three Inter-States agreements between Karnataka and Kerala. As has already been adverted to, the 3rd respondent is a Karnataka based operator. The routes allocated to such operators are in accordance with “Appendix III” of the Inter-State agreement dated 30.6.1976 between the two States. Mysore-Guruvayur of Mysore-Kozhikode route is not there in “Appendix III”. Of course, in “Appendix-I” item No.16 is Mysore- Kozhikode route. But the 3rd respondent is not able to show that the two trips permitted as per the said Appendix include the service operated by the 3rd WPC 2640/09 :4 : respondent. It is therefore obvious that the route in respect of which the 3rd respondent was granted counter signature (Mysore-Guruvayur) is not covered by the Inter-State agreements between the two States. The impugned order granting concurrence for the renewal is therefore illegal and hence liable to be interfered with invoking the powers of this Tribunal u/s.90 of the M.V.Act”. 7. Therefore, the main reason for allowing MVARP NO.13/08 filed by the KSRTC is that the petitioner was not able to show that the two trips mentioned at Sl.No.16 of Appendix I to Ext.P2 include the service operated by the petitioner. This conclusion of the STAT is sought to be contradicted by the petitioner mainly referring to Exts.P1, P3, P4, P13, P14, P17, P19 and P20. A reading of Ext.P1, as already stated shows that the petitioner has been operating since 1955 and Exts.P3 and P4 are the timings of both the trips, about which also reference has already been made. Exts.P13 and P14 are the two permits which was issued in favour of the petitioner. Ext.P17 endorsement of variation also shows that the permit was in operation. In Ext.P19, issued subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, renewing the permit, it is specifically stated by the Karnataka State Transport Authority that the route finds a place at Sl.No.16 of Appendix I to WPC 2640/09 :5 : Ext.P2 inter-state agreement. 8. Therefore, in the light of the above facts, and in the absence of any material produced by the KSRTC to contradict the assertion of the petitioner as above, I am inclined to think that the petitioner is well founded in the submission that what is included at Sl.No.16 of Appendix I of Ext.P2 agreement are his permits. If so, the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal in Ext.P15 cannot be sustained and consequently Ext.P16 also cannot survive. Therefore Exts.P15 and P16 will stand quashed and the writ petition will stand allowed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp