IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 8093 of 2010(J) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, SRI.RANJITH JOSEPH. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC SRI P.BENJAMIN PAUL,SC, KSRTC RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KERALA ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KERALA ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. S.ELANGO, S/O.V.R.SUNDARAM 17/C,485, ANAMARI ROAD MANTHAKIZHIYA, MUTHALAMADA, PALAKKAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL FOR R3 SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/02/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 8094 OF 2010 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ..2/- W.P (C) No.8093/2010 -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 03-03-2009 OF THE MEETING OF STA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 24-12-2009 OF THE STAT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS EXT.R3 (a) -TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE THROUGH WHICH THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S SERVICE OPERATES EXT.R3 (b) -TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT REGARDING RENEWAL OF PERMIT IN RESPECT OF STAGE CARRIAGE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-09/W-7907 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos. 8093, 8094, 8095, 8096 & 8097 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T In these writ petitions the Managing Director of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short) challenges the common order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam in M.V.A.R.P. Nos.227/2009, 228/2009, 229/2009, 230/2009 & 231/2009, a copy of which is produced and marked as Ext.P2 in W.P.(C) No.8093 of 2010 and in the other cases. The brief facts are as follows: 2. The party respondents in these writ petitions are private stage carriage operators operating different stage carriages on the route Thrissur-Pollachi pursuant to and in terms of an agreement entered into between the State of Kerala and the State of Tamil Nadu in the year 1976. After the said agreement was entered into, regular stage carriage permits were issued to the party respondents to operate stage carriages on the aforesaid route as limited stop ordinary service. The permits were being renewed from time to time. Shortly before the validity of the permits was to expire, they filed separate applications for conversion of their service as limited stop fast passenger service. By Ext.P1 order produced in the respective writ petitions, the State Transport Authority rejected the applications on the ground that such conversion will affect the travelling WPC Nos.8093/2010 & Conn. Cases 2 public, more particularly the students. Aggrieved thereby, the party respondents filed separate revision petitions before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. By the order impugned in these writ petitions, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the State Transport Authority and directed conversion of the service as fast passenger service if the vehicles offered by the petitioners are fit for such higher class of service. Hence these writ petitions. The petitioner contends that while passing the impugned orders, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal erred in not taking note of the possible injury and inconvenience caused to the travelling public and students since they will have to pay higher fare to travel in the stage carriages run by the party respondents. It is contended that the route length alone is not the criteria for classification of the service as fast passenger service, that there is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the rules framed thereunder which enables the conversion of a service from limited stop ordinary service to limited stop fast passenger service and that the operator can only apply for and obtain a fresh permit if he wants to operate a stage carriage as a limited stop fast passenger service. 3. The party respondents have filed separate counter affidavits justifying the decision of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. It is also contended that the Corporation which is an existing operator has no locus WPC Nos.8093/2010 & Conn. Cases 3 standi to challenge the order granting conversion. On the merits it is contended that the Corporation is also operating fast passenger services on the route in question and that conversion of the service as fast passenger service will not adversely affect the students, as alleged by the petitioner as other stage carriages are operating on the sector within the State of Kerala. 4. I heard Sri.P.Benjamin Paul, learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation, Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala and Sri.Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the party respondents. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the interstate agreement between the State of Kerala and the State of Tamil Nadu, the Corporation is operating 8 fast passenger services and 2 ordinary services on the route Thrissur-Pollachi. The Tamil Nadu Road Transport Corporation is operating 3 fast passenger services. Private stage carriage operators like the party respondents herein are operating 9 stage carriages as ordinary service. 5 among them moved for reclassification of the service as fast passenger service and the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal granting that request is the subject matter of these writ petitions. The State Transport Authority which considered the applications for conversion, rejected them on the ground that such conversion will affect the passengers including students. WPC Nos.8093/2010 & Conn. Cases 4 Reliance was placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1591 of 1997 and connected cases stating that in the said decision, the rejection of the application for conversion of ordinary service to fast passenger service was upheld by this Court on the ground that the distance covered is short and as a result of the conversion, inconvenience will be caused to passengers and students. On revision, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal held that as the Corporation is operating only fast passenger service on the route in question and there are several short distance service operators operating ordinary service on the route, the request of the party respondents to convert their stage carriage services as fast passenger services is justified. 5. A Division Bench of this Court has in P.K.Poulose v. State of Kerala (1997 (1) KLJ 587) held that as a sizeable section of the people depend on ordinary services for their travel, if the number of ordinary services is reduced and the fare is also hiked, the common man will be deprived of the benefit that had accrued to him when the buses were being operated as ordinary service. It was also held that though for long distance passengers, fast passenger services will be beneficial, as these services were started for the benefit of long distance passengers as also short distance passengers, the mere convenience of long distance passengers cannot be a reason to allow the applications for conversion. In that case it WPC Nos.8093/2010 & Conn. Cases 5 was contended before this Court that at the time when the appellants before the Division Bench commenced service, permits were issued only to operate stage carriages as ordinary services, that later permits were issued to different persons to operate fast passenger services as a result of which the existing operators were not able to compete with the new operators, that the services are meant for long distance passengers and therefore in public interest they are entitled to have their services converted into fast passenger services. Repelling the said contention the Division Bench held as follows: “6. After hearing the parties, we are of the view that the judgment of the learned single Judge has to be maintained. The permits were issued to the appellants on the basis of the then existing need. The stops were determined after taking into consideration the needs of the commuters. The convenience of the students was also taken into consideration while granting the permits. Now, if the appellants are allowed to convert the permits as Fast Passenger services, the number of stops will be reduced, the fare will be higher, the students who are entitled for concession when they travel by ordinary service will be deprived of the benefit. The only advantage that may accrue as a result of the conversion will be a little relief to the long distance passengers, in that they will be able to reach their destination quickly. The R.T.A. analysed these aspects and found that the common man will be affected if the conversion applied for is granted. The services are intended for the public. The public depend on the ordinary service for their travel. If the number of ordinary services is reduce and fare is also hiked, the common man will be deprived of the benefit that had accrued to him when the buses were being operated as ordinary services. As the learned single Judge correctly put it, the R.T.A. is aware of the local conditions and his opinion is supported by good reasons. If that be so, there is nothing to interfere with the judgment. The S.T.A.T. took WPC Nos.8093/2010 & Conn. Cases 6 note of the convenience of long distance passengers and also the fact that recently a number of Fast Passenger Services have been allowed. It is true that for long distance passengers, the Fast Passenger Services will be beneficial. But, these services were started for the benefit of the long distance passengers and also for the short distance passengers. Hence the mere convenience of the long distance passengers cannot be a pointer to allow the applications for conversion. The fact that recently the R.T.A. is allowing fresh applications for Fast Passenger Services is not a reason for allowing the applications for conversion. When fresh applications for Fast Passenger Services are allowed, they are allowed only after taking into consideration the interest of the long distance travelling public. So far as short distance passengers are concerned, their interest is not taken into account. For taking care of their interest other services are being operated. In the above view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge.” 6. The said decision is in my opinion a complete answer to the defence raised by the party respondents in these writ petitions. As noticed earlier, the State Transport Authority rejected the applications for conversion as limited stop fast passenger service on the ground that if such conversion is allowed it will affect the travelling public and the students who will have to pay more for travelling short distances. Stage carriage operators cannot in my opinion contend that they will cater to the needs of only long distance travellers. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that a distance of 97 Kms (the distance from Thrissur to Pollachi) can be said to be a long distance in these days, bus operators like the party respondents cannot take the stand that they will not cater to the needs of short distance passengers. The party respondents cannot be heard to WPC Nos.8093/2010 & Conn. Cases 7 contend that as they are operating on an interstate route they will not take in passengers travelling within the State of Kerala or for a short distance from the State of Kerala to the State of Tamil Nadu. As service providers, they are bound to cater to the needs of such passengers also. As noticed by the Division Bench in P.K.Poulose v. State of Kerala (supra) the mere convenience of long distance passengers cannot be the sole reason for the grant of conversion. That apart, by the impugned order, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal has authorised transport facilities different from those authorised by the original permits. Before such authorisation was given, interested persons like the travelling public were not put on notice. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 7. That takes me to the question whether as claimed by the party respondents, the Corporation has the locus standi to challenge the orders impugned in these writ petitions. The learned counsel for the party respondents contended relying on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Binu Chacko v. R.T.A. Pathanamthitta (2006 (2) KLT 172 (FB)) that the Corporation being a rival stage carriage operator cannot be said to be aggrieved by the impugned orders. I am afraid the said contention cannot be entertained. The mere fact that Corporation is a stage carriage operator and a rival in business cannot be a reason to hold that it cannot put forward WPC Nos.8093/2010 & Conn. Cases 8 the hardship which the travellers will be put to if the order impugned is allowed to attain finality. Further, the Full Bench of this Court has in Binu Chacko v. R.T.A. Pathanamthitta (supra) held that it may not be proper or expedient to restrict the scope of the words “person aggrieved” to settlement of timings only. The Full Bench held that though under the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 existing operators may have in the normal course, legal grievance in the matter of settlement of timings only, it is not possible to rule out any other grievance of a similar nature which would tilt the balance in favour of one operator and against another as a consequence of orders issued by the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority. When it is found that the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is not in public interest, as no one else is interested in challenging it, I am of the opinion that the Corporation can challenge it by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The view that I have taken has been accepted by the Division Bench of this Court in P.K.Poulose v. State of Kerala (supra). I therefore find no merit or force in the submission made by the party respondents that challenge to the impugned order at the instance of the Corporation is not maintainable. For the reasons stated above, I allow these writ petitions and quash Ext.P2. The orders passed by the State Transport Authority shall stand restored. It is however clarified that the party respondents will be free to WPC Nos.8093/2010 & Conn. Cases 9 apply for the grant of fresh regular permits to operate limited stop fast passenger services on the route in question if under the interstate agreement they can operate other services and there are existing vacancies in the route. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC Nos.8093/2010 & Conn. Cases 10 WPC Nos.8093/2010 & Conn. Cases 11