IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 19072 of 2007(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY LAW OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. 3. M.D. RAVI, ATHIRA, THEVALLY, KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR. R3 BY ADV. MR.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 19072/2007-U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 29/08/2006 OF THE RTA, KOLLAM. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/12/2006 IN M.V.A.A. NO.603/2006 OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE DRAFT SCHEME DATED 09/05/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a): COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VALID TILL 01/08/2012. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 19072 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 9th June, 2009. J U D G M E N T The Managing Director of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation challenges Ext. P2 order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, setting aside Ext. P1 order of the Regional Transport Authority by which an application for regular permit submitted by the 3rd respondent was rejected and directing issue of permit to the 3rd respondent subject to settlement of timing. The contention of the petitioner is that at the time when Ext. P1 order was passed in respect of the route in question, a notification publishing a draft scheme was pending, which is Ext. P3. According to the petitioner, as per Section 99(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, once a draft scheme is published, until the matter is finalised, no regular permit can be issued in respect of any part of the route. According to the petitioner, without considering that aspect of the matter, the Tribunal simply allowed the appeal and directed issue of permit, which is patently illegal and against the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The contention of the 3rd respondent is that Ext. P3 notification lapsed on 8-5-2007. According to the 3rd respondent, the Tribunal had considered the matter after calling for and perusing the records and there is nothing wrong with that order. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Ext. P1 reads thus: “Heard. The length of the route applied for is 68 kms and 10 of which is 6.8 kms. A distance of 4 kms from Eroor to Anchal on the Kayamkulam – Kuklathupuzha notified route and 0.5 kms. from Ayoor to Ayoor Cashew Factory Junction on the Thiruvananthapuram – Kollam Kottarakkara – Thiruvananthapuram notified route and 3 kms from Arumurikkada to Kundara Hospital junction the NH 208 Kollam – Schencotta notified route and 0.5 kms from High School Junction to Civil Station Junction overlaps. Therefore there is a violation of the W.P.C. No. 19072/07 -: 2 :- scheme published in 12951/2006 dtd. 09/05/06 and section 104 of the M.V Act. Hence rejected.” From the same, it is abundantly clear that rejection was also on the ground that a draft notification was pending. 5. Ext. P2 order reads thus: “The application was rejected on the ground that overlapping on four notified routes. One is Kayamkulam – Kulathupuzha scheme, which is partial exclusion scheme. Overlapping on 4 km no route under the scheme will be completely overlapped. The remaining three are complete exclusion scheme with exception. A single intermediate point of each of the scheme alone would be touched vide MVI's report at page 15 of RTA records. Hence grant claimed will not offend any scheme. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside and it is ordered to make grant subject to settlement of timing.” In that order, there is absolutely no mention whatsoever regarding the objection regarding pendency of a draft notification. That being so, I am not satisfied that the Tribunal has applied his mind to all aspects of the case. Accordingly, Ext. P2 order is quashed and the Tribunal is directed to re-consider the matter after examining the objection of the petitioner regarding the pendency of the draft notification also. The Tribunal shall dispose of M.V.A.A.No. 603/2006 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in accordance with the above direction. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/