IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 7856 of 2008(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.J.BENNY, S/O. JOSEPH, TRIKKUKKARAN HOUSE, P.O.OLLUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN SRI.HARIKRISHNAN RAVINDRAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 2. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 3. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 4. K.M.SATHYAN, KALLIYATH HOUSE, PERINCHERY, THRISSUR. ADDL.R5. KSRTC REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT OFFICER, THRISSUR (ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA 6688/08 IN WPC NO.7856/08) BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R4 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON 16/07/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.7856/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT 09.05.2006. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT 9.5.2007. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 14.6.2006. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DT 19.8.2006. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF the ORDER OF THE STAT IN MVAA NO.421/06 DT.13.10.06. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE RTA DTD. 5.1.2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 7856 OF 2008 I ==================== Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Exts. P5 and P6. Petitioner is an existing operator on the route Ayyanthole-Pudukkad Church on the strength of regular permit granted to his Stage Carriage bearing Regn.No.KL 10/B 7003. It is stated that the 4th respondent applied for a regular permit on the route Chennam-Ayyanthole via Cherpu, Perumpillissery, Vallachira, Thaikkattussery, Ollur and Thrissur. The application was considered by the 1st respondent and was rejected by Ext.P3 on the ground that it overlaps the Thrissur and Thrissur circular scheme as well as Ernakulam Thrissur scheme. Against Ext.P3, the 4th respondent filed Ext.P4 appeal before the Tribunal and that was allowed by Ext.P5 order setting aside the order of the RTA and directing grant of permit excluding the sector Perumpillissery -Trichur (via) Koorkancherry and Palakkal. In pursuance to Ext.P5, permit was granted by the RTA by Ext.P6 proceedings and it is challenging Exts.P5 and P6 the writ petition is filed. 2. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the WPC 7856/08 :2 : petitioner is that appeal before the STAT itself was not maintainable. According to him, the reason for rejection of the application made by the 4th respondent was that the route in question was covered by Exts. P1 and P2 notifications issued by the Government of Kerala under Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998. It is contended that once a notification is issued as above, in terms of Section 103, permit could be issued only to KSRTC and that no appeal shall lie against any action taken or order passed by the RTA under Sub Section 1 and 2 of Section 103 of the Act. 3. In my view, since Exts. P1 and P2 notifications are proposals notified by the State Government, Section 103 has no application. True Section 103 provides that where, in pursuance of an approved scheme, when an application is made by the State Transport Undertaking, the RTA shall issue the permit applied for by the State Transport Undertaking. In respect of such an order, sub section 3 of Section 103 provides that an appeal is not maintainable. However, in so far as a proposal published under Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act is concerned, the restrictions of Section 103 will not apply in as much as the same is applicable only when the draft is finalised and is notified under Section 100(2) of the Act. Therefore, I cannot accept the plea of the learned counsel for the WPC 7856/08 :3 : petitioner that the appeal itself was not maintainable. 4. As regards his contentions on the merits of Exts. P5 and P6 are concerned, there again, in view of the Full Bench Judgment reported in the case of Binu Chacko v. RTA, Pathanamthitta (2006(2) KLT 172) an existing operator like the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the said orders. Learned counsel argued that since what is complained of was scheme violation, the law laid down by the Full Bench is inapplicable. In my view, such a plea is only to be stated and rejected especially for the reason that one of the writ petitions dealt with by the Full Bench and dismissed is not maintainable for want of locus standi to the petitioner therein, the challenge was against the grant of permit on the ground that the route overlapped a route within the exclusive scheme of KSRTC. This is evident from para 29 of the Full Bench judgment. That apart, following the Full Bench judgment, a Division Bench of this court in its judgment in WA 1983/06 also dismissed an appeal against the judgment dismissing a writ petition finding that the existing operator, the petitioner therein, did not have locus standi to file the writ petition. A reading of the judgment shows that there also the challenge was on the sole ground that the grant was in violation of a nationalization scheme. WPC 7856/08 :4 : 5. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench and the Division Bench judgments referred to above, I hold that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this writ petition challenging Exts.P5 and P6. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp