IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 34902 of 2008(E) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------- L.RADHIKA, 18/1700, K.R.R.A.NO.182, THAMALAM, POOJAPPURA P.O., TRIVANDRUM, PIN 695 005. BY ADV. SRI.A.INEES RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SRI.N.S.PRADEEP, VAZHUVELI TIMBERS, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R2 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.34902/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF the PREAMBLE OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 29.12.1994. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT HELD ON 9.11.1999 IN ITEM NO.81. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT HELD ON 11.12.2006 IN ITEM NO.2 EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY ONE SRI.K.MURALEEDHARAN BEFORE THE RTA MEETING HELD ON 19.9.2007 IN ITEM NO.16. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19.9.2007 IN TEM NO.16 REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF MVAA NO.832/2007 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONENT AGAINST EXT.P5. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN MVAA NO.832/2007 DT 30.8.2008. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF the REGULAR PERMIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY TRANSFER ON THE ROUTE PAPPANAMCODE-POONITHURA. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT OF THE 2ND RESPONENT'S WIFE ON THE ROUTE AK.G.NAGAR-KUNDAMANKADAVU. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S WIFE ON THE ROUTE PEROORKADA-VELI. EXTS.OF R2 EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDETN FROM 20.5.2003 IN ORDER TO OPERATE IN PLACE OF KL-01/D 9951. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 34902 OF 2008 (E) ==================== Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P7, a judgment rendered by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in MVAA 832/07. Petitioner contends that in the route Pongumoodu-Neeramankara, there arose vacancy of a regular permit. According to her, in Ext.P1 guidelines framed in 1994 in the matter of grant of regular permits in Trivandrum city, which was upheld by this Court in OP 18144/96 and confirmed in WA 1865/96, has laid down the norms which are to be followed by the RTA in the grant of permits in the city route. It is stated that although Ext.P1 is of 1994, this has been followed in the subsequent occasions also, as is seen from Exts. P2 and P3. 2. Petitioner submits that despite this position, the 2nd respondent made an application for regular permit in the route mentioned above. Ext.P4 is an objection that was filed by a rival aspirant. By Ext.P5 proceedings, the RTA rejected the application of the 2nd respondent and the reason stated is as follows: This is a fresh permit. As per notification No.12951/07 dt 9.5.2007 new permit can only be granted to KSRTC on the notified area. Hence rejected. WPC 34902/08 :2 : 3. It is stated that aggrieved by Ext.P5, the 2nd respondent filed Ext.P6 appeal before the Tribunal, which was allowed as per Ext.P7. The relevant portion of the order reads as under. In so far as, the route applied for by the appellant is from out of those 100 city permits. There is no justification to deny regular permit on the ground of scheme violation or on the basis of the draft notification dated 9.5.2007. Int hat view of the matter, I find that the impugned order refusing the regular permit is illegal and hence liable to be set aside. In the result, this appeal is allowed. Setting aside the impugned order,the 1st respondent is directed to grant regular permit to the appellant as sought for by him, subject to settlement of timings. 4. Petitioner submits that if at all the Tribunal is to allow the appeal, the Tribunal could have only remanded the matter for fresh consideration, dealing with the merits of the application made by the 2nd respondent and that the Tribunal could not have assumed the role of the RTA against the mandate contained in Rule 20 of the STAT Rules. Counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.34437/03 in relation to the city permits in Kochi city and contended that if any fresh permit is to be granted, the same should be notified and applications invited and considered. 5. Yet another contention raised was that the grant of permit in the city routes can only be in terms of Ext.P1 and that in terms of Ext.P1, WPC 34902/08 :3 : the 2nd respondent is an ineligible candidate. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. In the counter affidavit, it is contended by the 2nd respondent that in the route mentioned above, a regular permit was granted by the RTA and that the operator had defaulted service. It is stated that in the default vacancy, the 2nd respondent applied for temporary permit and Ext.R2(a) is the first temporary permit that was granted to him w.e.f. 20/5/2003. It is stated that since then he has been continuously operating in the route on temporary permits. 7. In the meanwhile, regular permit granted has expired and that the operator did not apply for its renewal. It is stated that during all this period, none other than him, had applied for permit either temporary or regular in the route in question and therefore he was being issued temporary permits successively. 8. When he made application for regular permit, that was considered by the RTA on 20th of March, 2007 and there was no objection. It is is stated that the proceedings were adjourned to the next meeting and the matter came up for consideration before the RTA again on 19/9/2007. According to the 2nd respondent, at no point of time, petitioner made any application for temporary permit or regular permit or even raised any WPC 34902/08 :4 : objection against granting the permit to the 2nd respondent. 9. It is stated that despite all this, the RTA by Ext.P5 rejected the application on the ground that the route in question was covered by the draft notification dated 9/5/2007. It is stated that aggrieved by Ext.P5, he filed a statutory appeal before the Tribunal impleading the KSRTC also as a respondent. The appeal was heard and the Tribunal allowed the appeal as per Ext.P7 and rejected the grant in favour of the 2nd respondent. It is stated that there is absolutely no bonafides in the contentions raised. 10. On facts, it can therefore be seen that since 20/5/2003, the 2nd respondent has been operating on the route on the strength of temporary permits. At no point of time has the petitioner made any application either for regular permit or temporary permit. Even before the RTA, when the application made by the 2nd respondent came up for consideration in the meeting of 19/9/07, petitioner has no case that she has raised any objection. On the other hand, she is relying on Ext.P4 objection field by yet another stranger. 11. A reading of Ext.P5 shows that the only reason on the basis of which the RTA rejected the application of the 2nd respondent was that the route in question was covered by the notification dated 9/5/2007. Necessarily, therefore, in the appeal filed against Ext.P5, the Tribunal was WPC 34902/08 :5 : called upon to decide the correctness of the reason assigned by the RTA. A reading of Ext.P7 shows that the Tribunal held that though notification in question covers the route as well, since what was applied for by the 2nd respondent was one out of the 100 city permits granted in 1994, the notification is irrelevant. This conclusion by the STAT cannot be assailed. Since the Tribunal overruled the only ground on which permit was rejected, as a necessary consequence, Tribunal moulded relief by directing grant of permit in favour of the 2nd respondent. 12. On facts, I do not think that this Court should exercise the discretionary jurisdiction in a case like this where the petitioner was nowhere in the picture until the writ petition is filed. 13. I am also not interested by the argument that Rule 20 of the Tribunal Rules is attracted. A reading of the rule shows that the Tribunal is prohibited from exercising the original power of the RTA. But then, here in this case, Ext.P7 reflects the exercise of appellate power and that is not hit by Rule 20. I am not persuaded to interfere. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp