IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5057 of 2011(F) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.RAVINDRAKUMAR, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. V.DAMODHARAN NAIR, ILLATHUKULAM, OLASSERY P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL, SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD-678 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD-678 001. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PALAKKAD-678 001. 4. P.GANGADHARAN, KARAKOTTUPARA, THEKKANKUNNAM, KOTTEKKAD P.O., PALAKKAD-678 732. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI, R3 BY SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL, S.C, K.S.R.T.C, ADV. SRI. MILLU DANDAPANI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.5057 OF 2011 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P9 order passed by State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT), Ernakulam allowing the appeal filed by the 4th respondent and directing the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad to issue a fresh regular permit to him to operate a stage carriage on the route Palakkad-Malampuzha via Olavakode-Puthoor is under challenge in this writ petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 2. The 4th respondent herein applied for the grant of a fresh regular permit to operate a stage carriage on the route Palakkad- Malampuzha. The Regional Transport Authority that met on 3.8.2007 granted the said permit. It appears that another applicant had applied for a fresh stage carriage permit to operate on the same route but that application was rejected. The petitioner herein, thereupon filed Ext.P1 objection before the Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad contending that the proposed line of travel overlaps the Wpc 5057/2011 2 nationalised route on the sector Palakkad - Kannur for a length of 5 kms. The Regional Transport Authority considered this objection and revoked the permit earlier granted by Ext.P2 proceedings dated 17.9.2007. The 4th respondent thereupon preferred an appeal before the STAT. By Ext.P4 order passed on 17.12.2009, the appeal was dismissed. The 4th respondent thereupon filed WP(C)No.27014 of 2008 in this Court. By Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 17.12.2009, the writ petition was dismissed. 3. The Regional Transport Authority had revoked the permit granted to the 4th respondent on the ground that line of travel includes the stretch from Palakkad Muncipal Bus stand to Tharekkad which overlaps the nationlised route for a length of approximately 1.5 kms. While the writ petition which was dismissed by Ext.P4 judgment was pending in this Court, the State Government issued Ext.P5 notification in supersession of all earlier notifications issued under section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In that scheme, it was stipulated that stage carriages operated by private operators can operate on portions of the nationalised route if the overlapping on the line of travel Wpc 5057/2011 3 does not exceed 5 kms or 5% of the route length, whichever is less. The 4th respondent did not bring Ext.P5 notification to the notice of the learned Single Judge who dismissed the writ petition. He however invited the attention of the Division Bench to Ext.P5 notification and contended before the Division Bench that the distance from the Muncipal Bus stand to Tharekkad Junction is less than 1 km, that in view of Ext.P5 scheme, overlapping is permissible for a distance of 1.3 kms and that the distance between Muncipal Bus Stand and Tharekkad junction is less than 1.3 kms. He also filed I.A.236 of 2010 in W.A.203 of 2010 for the appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure the distance between the said two points. By order passed on 18.3.2010, Division Bench of this Court of which I was a member, allowed the said application. The Advocate Commissioner accordingly measured the distance between Palakkad Muncipal Bus stand and Tharekkad junction with notice to parties and submitted Ext.P6 report to the effect that distance between the two points is 800 metres. The Division Bench of this Court which heard W.A.203 of 2010 thereupon directed the STAT to reconsider the appeal having due regard to Ext.P6 report Wpc 5057/2011 4 submitted by Advocate Commisisoner and Ext.P5 scheme. The STAT thereafter passed Ext.P9 order overruling the objection raised by the petitioner to the grant of the permit. Hence this writ petition. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the route along which the 4th respondent will have to operate the stage carriage includes the reach from KSRTC Bus Stand to Town Bus stand, (0.6 kms) and from Town Bus Stand to Muncipal Bus Stand (0.8 kms) and if the said reaches are also taken into account, the overlapping will be for 2.2 kms, which is in excess of the permissible limit and therefore the appellate order is liable to be set aside. 4. I heard Sri Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri P.Benjamin Paul, learned standing counsel for the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Smt Sumathy Dandapani, learned counsel appearing for 4th respondent. The KSRTC has not chosen to challenge Ext.P9. If at all anyone can be stated to be aggrieved by Ext.P9 on account of overlapping as alleged by the petitioner, it is the KSRTC. It is now well settled by a series of decisions of this Court including the decision in Binu Chacko V. RTA, Pathanamthitta (2006(2) Wpc 5057/2011 5 KLT 172) that a rival operator has no locus standi to challenge the grant of a permit in favour of another operator. In such circumstances, as the aggrieved party viz, the KSRTC has not chosen to challenge the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the challenge to Ext.P9 at the instance of the petitioner cannot be entertained. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary for me to consider whether on account of the overlapping in the reaches referred to above, the 4th respondent is entitled to a permit. I therefore find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE lgk