IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 152 of 2010(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M.S.POORNIMA, PROPRIETOR, MODERN TRAVELS, SHANKER MUTT ROAD, MYSORE. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL, SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KERALA, TRIVANDRUM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM. 4. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. R1,R2 & R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.152 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting services on the route Mysore-Mananthavadi. The total length of the route is 114.3 Kms. The petitioner finds it difficult to conduct the services using a single vehicle for the reason that the distance to be covered would be 450 kms. For the purpose of conducting services in a more convenient manner, the petitioner submitted an application to include one more vehicle in the permit so that he would be in a position to operate both the vehicles alternatively for the purpose of conducting the services in an efficient manner. According to the petitioner, the said arrangement would be beneficial to the travelling public also. 2. The request of the petitioner was considered by the State Transport Authority (STA) and was rejected as per Ext.P4 proceedings. Though the petitioner challenged Ext.P4 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal wpc No.152/2010 2 ('STAT' for short) in MVAA No.384 of 2008, as per Ext.P5 judgment, the STAT has dismissed the petitioner's appeal, confirming Ext.P4. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Exts.P4 and P5. 3. The counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment dated 10.1.2003 of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1812 of 2002. An identical situation had arisen in the said case also where another operator had sought for the inclusion of one more vehicle into the permit for conducting services on the very same route, Mysore-Mananthavadi. After considering the scope of Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Division Bench has concluded the issue in the following words: “If additional number of trips can be included, we don't find any bar to enhance the number of vehicles. Mere variation in the number of trips will not enable the operators to operate on the route without additional stage carriage. Government also does not say anything because putting an additional stage carriage on the route will burden the operators to pay tax for the additional stage carriage”. wpc No.152/2010 3 4. In view of the above dictum, I do not think that there is a legal impediment in sanctioning the request of the petitioner. In the light of the dictum laid down by the Division Bench, Exts.P4 and P5 cannot be sustained. 5. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed. Exts.P4 and P5 are set aside. The first respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner afresh and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/