IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 WA.No. 1238 of 2009 () --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.12.06 IN R.P. NO.269/06 AND JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.06 IN WPC.1675/2006. .................... APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT IN R.P ----------------------------------- KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY SRI.BENJAMN PAUL, SC. KSRTC. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 2 & 3 IN R.P ------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.KARUNAKARAN, S/O.KUNHAMBU, KOKKADAN HOUSE, PARASSINIKKADAVU, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. U.D.SHAYI, SHEENA NIVAS, P.O.PATHAYAKUNNU, POOKODE, THALASSERY, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.P.BALAMOHANA BABU, RATHIN NIVAS, P.O.PALAYAD. R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ R2 & R3 BY SRI.BASANT BALAJI, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4 BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2010, ALONG WITH R.P NO.335/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.A. No. 1238/2009 and R.P. No.335/2009 in W.A. No. 598/2007 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer,J. Since the issue involved in these two cases is common, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. W.A. No. 1238 of 2009 is filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation against the order in R.P. No.269 of 2006 in W.P.(C) No.1675 of 2006. The grievance of the appellant is that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the review petition, recalling its earlier order of dismissal of the writ petition is totally unwarranted and unjust, in as much as it was passed without noticing Annexure-1 judgment of this Court 3. It is on record that after recalling the earlier order of dismissal of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge had finally disposed of the above writ petition (W.P.(C) No. W.A.No.1238/09 & con. case 2 1675 of 2006), directing the Regional Transport Authority to issue a permit to respondent No.1, after settling the timings, provided respondent No.1 satisfied the other requirements like production of current records etc. 4. The primary contention raised by the appellant Corporation is that the route in question being a notified one, respondent No.1 could not have been granted a permit at all. Further, in O.P. No.5647 of 1994 (Annexure-1) this Court had, relying on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in K.S.R.T.C. V. R.T.O., Ernakulam (1997(2) KLT 330), set aside the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in favour of respondent No.1. 5. Relevant facts may be briefly noticed. 6. In 1994 the State Transport Appellate Tribunal granted a permit to respondent No.1 to operate a stage carriage as Limited Stop Fast Passenger on Kannur – Kasaragod route. But it appears that the permit was not issued to him pursuant to that order. Therefore, he filed W.P.(C) No. 25966 of 2004, after a lapse of more than ten W.A.No.1238/09 & con. case 3 years, praying for an appropriate direction in this regard. The said writ petition was considered by tis Court along with yet another writ petition filed by him as W.P.(C) No. 1675 of 2006 praying for a direction to issue a permit after settling timings. Both these petitions were dismissed by this Court by a common judgment dated February 2, 2006. 7. However, though respondent No.1 did not challenge the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 25966 of 2004, he filed R.P. No.269 of 2006 for review of the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 1675 of 2006. The said review petition was allowed and W.P.(C) No. 1675 of 2006 was disposed of with a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to issue a permit to respondent No.1. The Corporation has challenged these two orders in W.A. No.1238 of 2009. 8. Review Petitioner in R.P. No.335 of 2009 is respondent No.3 in W.P.(C) No. 1675 of 2006. He had challenged the order in R.P.No.269 of 2006 as well as the final judgment in OP No.1675 of 2006 in W.A. No. 598 of 2007. But a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said W.A.No.1238/09 & con. case 4 appeal, holding that the remedy of the appellant lay before the appropriate statutory authority. The above judgment is sought to be reviewed in R.P. No.335 of 2009, contending inter alia that the earlier orders passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1675 of 2006 and W.P.(C) No. 25996 of 2004 were not considered by the Division Bench while dismissing W.A.No. 598 of 2007. 9. It is beyond controversy that the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 25966 of 2004 has become final. But it is contended by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that on the strength of an interim order dated September 3, 2004 in the said writ petition he had been granted permit, provisionally. Therefore, the contention now raised by the Corporation and the review petitioner (respondent No.3) that he is not entitled to hold a permit, cannot be entertained. It is further contended by him that he had not suppressed any material facts before this Court while filing W.P.(C) No. 1675 of 2006. 10. Any how, it is on record, as could be seen from the W.A.No.1238/09 & con. case 5 files produced by the Regional Transport Officer, that respondent No.1 has not been issued any permit, though such a direction was issued by this Court in its interim order dated September 3, 2004. In other words, he has not so far get the benefit of the interim order which he obtained in his writ petition. In this context, it must be remembered that his writ petition was ultimately dismissed. Further, in Annexure-1 judgment (O.P.No.5647/1994) this Court had set aside the order of grant of permit issued by the Tribunal in favour of respondent No.1. Even otherwise he could not have been granted permit, in view of the fact that the route in question is a notified one. That position having been settled, respondent No.1 cannot have a case that he would be entitled to get a permit on the route in question. 11. In any view of the matter, the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 1675 of 2006 and the order in R.P. No.269 of 2006 cannot be sustained for the reasons stated above. Therefore, the writ appeal is allowed and the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 1675 of 2006 and the order W.A.No.1238/09 & con. case 6 in R.P. No.269 of 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. 12. In view of the above order passed in the writ appeal, no further orders are necessary in R.P. No. 335 of 2009. Therefore, the review petition is closed. Sd/-A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. Sd/-P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn /true copy/ PA to Judge.