IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 11703 of 2011(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.S.BABY, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.SCARIAH, AMAYOLLICKAL HOUSE, NEAR GOVERNMENT POLY TECHNIC, KODUMBU P.O. PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PALAKKAD 678001. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD 678001. 3. C.MADHUSOODANAN, ANAVANKOTTA HOUSE, AKETHETHARA P.O., PALAKKAD 678001. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM 682011. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 11703/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND RESEARCH CENTRE (NATPAC) REPORT EXT.P2 : COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 6.7.2010 IN 'ITEM NO:12' EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.11.2010 EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN MVAA NO.382 OF 2010 EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE PETITION FOR IMPLEADING AND THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 1.1.2011 EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2.3.2011 IN MVAA NO.382 EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.1.2007 IN W.P.(C) No. 90/2007 EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.3.2007 IN WA NO.477 OF 2007 EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.9.2004 IN WA NO.1702 OF 2004 EXT.P10 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE NOTICE FOR TIMING CONFERENCE DATED 28.9.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE vps P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 11703 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage service on the route Peringottukurissi-Palakkad on the strength of a regular permit. The third respondent herein, a new entrant, applied for a fresh regular stage carriage permit to operate a stage carriage on the route Edathara Kumar- Palakkad Town Bus Stand. A portion of the route namely from High school Junction to MLA Road is common to both the routes. The Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad that met on 30.11.2010 rejected the third respondent's application on the short ground that a portion of the route passes through the most populated part of Palakkad town and if the permit is granted it would contribute further to the growing traffic congestion in the town. Aggrieved thereby, the third respondent filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. In the appeal memorandum, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P4, he inter alia contended relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India (AIR 1992 SC 443) that WPC No.11703/2011 2 over saturation of the route and the possible traffic congestion are not valid reasons to reject an application for regular permit. The petitioner made an attempt to get himself impleaded in that appeal by filing Ext.P5 application. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal rejected that application along with the application filed by another operator seeking impleadment on the ground that after occupying the driver's seat, no one can say that others have no right to ply a stage carriage through the route. By the said order, which is produced as Ext.P6, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the third respondent and directed grant of the permit applied for by him. Hence this writ petition challenging Ext.P6. 2. The petitioner contends that as the original authority had issued a public notice and invited objections to the application for grant of the fresh permit, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal should have heard the objectors including the petitioner who had sought impledment as a respondent in the appeal. It is also contended that the third respondent has not questioned the correctness of the finding in Ext.P3 order that WPC No.11703/2011 3 there is growing traffic congestion in the Palakkad town and a portion of the route passes through the most populated part of Palakkad town and therefore the Regional Transport Authority was perfectly right in rejecting the application. 3. I heard Sri.P.Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Manoj P.Kunjachan, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.O.D.Sivadas, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on sections 71, 72 and 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act is that the rejection of an application for a fresh stage carriage permit on the ground that the grant would result in contributing to the growing traffic congestion in Palakkad town cannot be said to be contrary to the object of the Act and therefore the Appellate Tribunal erred in interfering with the said order. Per contra, Sri.O.D. Sivadas, learned counsel for the third respondent contended that as the third respondent’s application was not for a city permit to operate a stage carriage on a city route, the WPC No.11703/2011 4 considerations which weigh with the State Government in the matter of limiting the number of stage carriages on a city route have no application and therefore the mere fact that a portion of the route passes through the most populated part of the town cannot be a reason to deny the permit, if otherwise, the need justifies the grant. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. The petitioner is admittedly operating the service on a different route. The sector common to the route through which the petitioner operates the service and the route for which the new permit has been granted in favour of the third respondent is the portion from High School Junction to MLA Road covering a distance of 7.5 kms. The total length of the third respondent’s route is 10.5 kms. As rightly held by the Appellate Tribunal, the rejection of the application was mainly on the ground that it would contribute to the growing traffic congestion in Palakkad town. The petitioner has no case that after the grant in favour of the third respondent was made, no other permit has been granted to other destinations through the WPC No.11703/2011 5 same route. In my opinion, in the absence of a statutory prescription that even in respect of services other than city services, the Regional Transport Authority can decline to grant permit on the ground that it would contribute to traffic congestion, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that a permit covering a portion of the route through which he is operating the service should not be granted. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the petitioner who is already operating a service cannot be said to be aggrieved substantially so as to entitle him to object to the grant in favour of the third respondent. I accordingly hold that the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal directing the grant of a stage carriage permit in favour of the third respondent does not merit interference. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) WPC No.11703/2011 6 vps