IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 28380 of 2007(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION(C.I.T.U), AFFILIATED TO PALAKKAD UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.VIJAYAN, PALAKKAD UNIT, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 3. K.SETHUMADHAVAN, S/O KRISHNAN, DEVI NILAYAM, VALLENGY, NENMARA P.O., CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. 4. P.K.SANTHOSH, NO.3, T.M.COMPLEX, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD. ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED. 5. V.MANOJ, S/O. VISWANATHAN, RESIDING AT AJANTHA, RAMANATHAPURAM, PALAKKAD IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT. 31.10.2007 IN IA.14371/07. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN - R3 SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL - ADDL.R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJKUMAR - R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 1243 OF 2008 THE COURT ON 16/06/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.28380/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT. 21.2.1966 BEARING NO.41971/TB3/65/PW, S.R.O. NO.113/66. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT. 9.5.2007 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE R.T.A. MEETING HELD ON 21.8.2006. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.T.A. PALAKKAD HELD ON 3.8.07 IN ITEM NO.10. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.T.A. PALAKKAD HELD ON 3.8.2007 IN ITEM NO.46. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE MENTIONED IN REPLY AFFIDAVIT. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF AGENDA ITEM NO.13 OF THE MEETING OF THE IST RESPONDENT HELD DURING DECEMBER 2007. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE DECISION DT. 18.12.2007 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF AGENDA ITEM NO.8 OF THE MEETING HELD IN JANUARY 2008, REFERRED TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT. EXT.P10:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 OF THE MEETING OF THE IST RESPONDENT HELD DURING FEBRUARY, 2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) Nos. 28380/07 & 1243/08 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th June 2008 J U D G M E N T W.P.(C) No. 28380/07, is filed by Kerala State Road Transport Employees Association (CITU), Palakkad Unit seeking to quash Exts. P4 and P5. Exts. P4 and P5 are the proceedings of the 1st respondent granting permit in respect of stage carriages of Respondents 3 and 4. It is contended that the permits granted overlaps the routes notified as per Exts.P1 and P2 notifiations and therefore, the grants are illegal. It is contended that the position is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Rahul Tom v. K.S.R.T.C. {2001(3) KLT 261}. 2. W.P.(C) No. 1243/08 is filed by the 4th respondent in W.P. (C) No. 28380/07 complaining of delay in settling the timings in respect of the permit granted to him. Since the issues raised in these two writ petitions are connected, there cases were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. When the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the contesting respondents in W.P.(C) No. 28380/07 raised a W.P.(C) No. 28380/07 & 1243/08 - 2 - preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. According to them, the writ petition is not maintainable as it is filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Employees Association (CITU), Palakkad Unit, a trade union of the employees of the KSRTC. According to the respondents, the said trade union cannot be an “aggrieved person” to maintain the writ petition challenging the grant of permits in their favour. They relied on the Full Bench Judgment in Binu Chacko v. RTA, Pathanamthitta {2006(2) KLT 172 (FB)}. This contention is sought to be resisted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly by referring to the decision in 2001(3) KLT 261 (supra) and contending that the aforesaid case decided by the Division Bench arose from a writ petition filed by this very Association. According to her, by the aforesaid judgment this Court has already recognized the locus standi of the petitioner and therefore the contention questioning the maintainability of the writ petition has no substance. 3. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. In my view, the objection to the maintainability of W.P.(C) No. 28380/07, raised by the learned counsel for the contesting W.P.(C) No. 28380/07 & 1243/08 - 3 - respondents is liable to be accepted. A Full Bench of this Court in Binu Chacko v. RTA, Pathanamthitta {2006(2) KLT 172 (FB)} held that an existing operator is not a person aggrieved by the grant of permit and is not competent to challenge the grant of permit on the ground that the grant of permit to the opposite party prejudicially affects his rights. In fact in one of the cases dealt with by the Full Bench, the contention raised was that the grant of permit was in violation of scheme notification. 4. If an existing operator himself is not a person aggrieved to maintain a challenge against grant of permits, in my view, an employee or a trade union of an existing operator, be it the KSRTC or a private person, cannot stand on a better footing. Petitioners could not explain to me if they were in any manner affected by the grant of permit in favour of the contesting respondents. Therefore, not only that the petitioners are not affected by the permits granted to the contesting respondents, they are also not “persons aggrieved” to maintain a writ petition. 5. Counsel relied on the decision of the Division Bench in Rahul Tom v. K.S.R.T.C. {2001(3) KLT 261} and contended that in W.P.(C) No. 28380/07 & 1243/08 - 4 - the aforesaid judgment this Court has accepted the locus standi of the petitioner. True, that writ petition was filed by the petitioner- Association, but then, on a reading of that judgment, I notice that the locus standi of the petitioner was not an issue that was raised or considered in that judgment. That apart, this very issue has been considered by the Full Bench in the case of Binu Chacko referred to above. Therefore the judgment in the case of Rahul Tom will not improve the case of the petitioner. 6. In these circumstances, I hold that the petitioner is not a “person aggrieved” to maintain this writ petition for the same reasons which were upheld by the Full Bench in the aforesaid judgment. Consequently, W.P.(C) No. 28380/07 will stand dismissed. 7. As a necessary consequence, W.P.(C) No. 1243/08 where the petitioner complains of delay in settlement of timing will stand disposed of directing that the respondent, the Secretary, RTA, Palakkad shall convene the timing conference and settle the timing as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. W.P.(C) No. 28380/07 & 1243/08 - 5 - In the result W.P.(C) No. 28380/07 will stand dismissed and W.P.(C) No. 1243/08 is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-