IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 25879 of 2010 (H) --------------------------- MVARP.261/2009 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM PETITIONER(S): ------------- THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADVS.SHRI P.BENJAMIN PAUL,SC, KSRTC SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KOTTAYAM PIN 686 001 2. THE SECRETARY RTA, KOTTAYAM PIN 686 001 3. SHEREEF K.A, DAHAHRA MANSIL ILLIKKAL, KILIROOR PO, KOTTAYAM PIN 686 001 4. ASHOK KORA ABRAHAM, VADAKKOTTH HOUSE, KOTTAYAM PO, PIN 686 001 R,R1&2. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RANI DIOTHIMA R,R3 BY SRI.P.DEEPAK R4 BY SRI . E. DINESH MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-12-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25879 of 2010 (H) APPENDIX PETITONERS EXHIBITS P1 COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 26-04-2010 OF THE STAT IN MVARP IS 261/2009 AND 31-3-2009 P2 COPY OF THE REPLY NO. 7891/2009-K. DATED 19-1-2010 ISSUED BY PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER RTO, KOTTAYAM RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE SMM C.K. ABDUL REHIM,J. --------------------------------- WP (C)No. 25879 OF 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 7 th day of December , 2011 J U D G M E N T The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) is challenging Ext.P1, a common order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam (STAT), to the extent it dismissed Revision Petition (M.V.A.R.P. 313/2009) filed by the petitioner. The Revision in question was filed against an order of the Regional Transport Authority (Kottayam) granting regular stage carriage permit to the 3rd respondent to operate on the route Kanjiram Jetty - Chengalathukavu , via Illickal, Thiruvathukkal, Karapuzha, Kottayam ,Aruthootty , Alummood, Avarupura, and Chengalathukavu, as town service. The decision of the R.T.A was challenged on the ground that the proposed route overlaps Kottayam-Neendoor complete exclusion scheme, apart from that it overlaps Kottayam-Kozhikode supplementation scheme covered by SRO 608 of 2009 WP (C)No. 25879 OF 2010 2 dated 14-07-2009. But the STAT found that the Kottayam- Neendoor complete exclusion scheme is applicable only to moffusil services , where as the permit in question is granted as a town service in Kottayam. In this regard KSRTC raised contention that no town service is notified in Kottayam as required under Rule 2(ca) of the KMV Rules. But STAT found that since Kottayam is a municipal town, any service which satisfies the definition of Rule 2(ca) can be granted as town service. Further the STAT found that on a perusal of a route map it is evident that the route in question is traversing the notified route only at 1.1 Km. because it is necessary to have access to the bus station in the town. Referring to the decision of the High Court of Karnataka, in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (I.L.R.1996 KAR) 770 it is held that such overlapping can be permitted . With respect to overlapping of Kottayam- Kozhikode notified route, referring to clause 5(c) of the said notification, the STAT observed that the overlapping of a WP (C)No. 25879 OF 2010 3 notified route not exceeding 5% of the proposed route length is permitted. It was also found that the overlapping is exceeding 5% only to a minimum distance of 350 mts. There also the overlapping became necessary only to have access to the town and to enter the bus station . On the basis of the above aspects, the STAT found that the objection raised by the KSRTC against the grant of the permit is devoid of merits. 2. Contention in the writ petition is to the effect that the Tribunal was not justified in stretching the distance provision for justifying overlapping. It is also contended that the reliance placed on the decision of the Karnataka High Court is not sustainable. Considering the facts and circumstances, it is realised that the alleged overlapping became necessitate only to facilitate entry of the stage carriage into the town Bus Stand. The alleged overlapping is only with respect to a negligible distance. Even though I am not fully convinced of sustainability of the legal position, I am not inclined to interfere in exercises of the WP (C)No. 25879 OF 2010 4 decretionary jurisdiction vested on this court, considering the facts and circumstances prevailing. This court is not sitting in appeal or revision against the order of the STAT. No substantial prejudice will be caused to the petitioner due to the alleged overlapping which is highly minimum in distance. Hence I am not satisfied that there exists any circumstances warranting interference. However, I clarify that the principle relied on by the STAT in the impugned judgment shall not be treated as precedent in other case. Therefore the writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations contained here in above. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE mm WP (C)No. 25879 OF 2010 5 WP (C)No. 25879 OF 2010 6