IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21348 of 2004(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------ 1. THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PRIVATE BUS OPERATOR'S ASSOCIATION, LISSY JUNCTION. (REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MAKKAR KUNJU). 2. KURIAN. P. ISSAC, SECRETARY, PRIVATE BUS OPERATOR'S ASSOCIATION, KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. M.V. VARGHESE, JOINT CONVENOR PRIVATE BUS OPERATOR'S ASSOCIATION, PERUMBAVOOR. 4. EMIL. B.K., SECRETARY, PRIVATE BUS OPERATOR'S ASSOCIATION, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA. *ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED ADDL. R5. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, (NATIONLISED SECTOR), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM * ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 12/08/04 IN I.A. NO.10838/04. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA. ADV. SRI.JAMES KOSHY.N., SC. KSRTC - R1 SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. - R,1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 18875 OF 2005 WPC NO. 11048 OF 2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).21348/2004-N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PERMIT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REQUEST PREFERRED THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22/06/04. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/06/2004. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REQUEST PREFERRED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 08/07/2004. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT OF 1ST RESPONDENT'S S/C NO.KL-15/3596 DATED 03/04/04. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT OF 1ST RESPONDENT'S S/C.NO.KL- 15/3610. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REQUEST PREFERRED 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 14/07/2004. EXT.P9: COPY AOF THE JUDGMENT IN I.P. NO.5609/1983 DATED 08/01/1985. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22/05/02. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 03/02/2003. EXT.P12: ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE EXT.P13: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 24/04/2004. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 24/04/2004. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF MEETING OF RTA, MUVATTUPUZHA HELD ON 22/09/2004. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 22/08/2002. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 03/02/2003. // TRUE COPY // Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 21348/2004 and 11048 & 18875 of 2005 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JULY 8, 2008 JUDGMENT In these writ petitions the grievance raised is that the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation are operating their vehicles in routes which are not nationalised without any permit issued in their favour. 2. In so far as W.P.(C) 21348/2004 is concerned, the learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that on the request of the KSRTC, temporary permits were granted and that it was on the strength of such temporary permits, they were plying their vehicles. Since this writ petition was filed in 2004, obviously the period of the temporary permit would have expired long ago. In view of this, if at all the petitioners are aggrieved, I reserve their right to challenge any unauthorised operation or temporary permit that may have been granted in favour of the KSRTC subsequently. 3. In so far as W.P.(C) 11048 & 18875 of 2005 are concerned, prima facie it would appear that there is substance in W.P.(C) 21348/2004 and 11048 & 18875 of 2005 2 what is contended by the petitioners. However, the learned Government Pleader is not certain as to whether the position as complained by the petitioners in these writ petitions is still continuing now. Be that as it may, in the nature of the relief that is sought for, all that is needed is to direct that in case the KSRTC is still plying their vehicles without permit and that too in non-nationalised routes, the authorities concerned shall take appropriate action in the matter. 4. Petitioners are directed to produce copy of the judgment before the respondents and shall also alert the respondents in case there is any situation warranting remedial action. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-