Ajithkumar N.P. v. State of Kerala, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram and Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF JULY 2019 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.18893 of 2017** ## **PETITIONER :** **AJITHKUMAR N.P. AGED 49 YEARS S/O PADMANABHAN, AISWARYA,ASHOKA ROAD, PUDUKKAD P.O.,IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTS,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505.** - **3 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM-676 505.** ## **BY SRI. PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL SR GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.18893 of 2017** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is the holder of Ext.P1 regular permit to operate on the route Kozhikode-Ernakulam as Limited Stop Fast Passenger with stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-45/M-7173, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 notification dated 15.03.2017 to the extent it prescribes a maximum distance of 140 Kms. for 'Ordinary Limited Stop Service'. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 3[rd] respondent to re-issue 4 months' temporary permit to him in respect of the aforesaid stage carriage on the said route as Limited Stop Ordinary Service by considering Ext.P5 application in continuation of Ext.P3 untrammelled by Ext.P4. 2. On 07.06.2017, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court passed the following **WP(C).No.18893 of 2017** **3** ## order; _“Admit. Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 to 3. Post along with connected matters._ _Learned counsel for petitioner submits that, petitioner is operating services on the strength of temporary permit issued to him. If the petitioner is operating services on the basis of temporary permit, status quo as on today shall be maintained and Ext.P5 application filed by the petitioner for reissue of temporary permit shall be considered, untrammelled by Ext.P4.”_ ## 3. On 24.07.2017, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order; _“The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is operating services on the strength of temporary permit issued to him. If the petitioner is operating services on the basis of temporary permit, status quo as on today shall be maintained and Ext.P8 application, filed by the petitioner for reissue of temporary permit shall be considered, untrammelled by Ext.P4 notification.”_ ## 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader **WP(C).No.18893 of 2017** **4** appearing for respondents 1 to 3. 4. The issue raised in this Writ Petition as to the challenge made against Exhibit-P4 Gazette notification dated 15.3.2017 is covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.11825 of 2017 and connected cases. The challenge made against that judgment by KSRTC ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 20.8.2018 in W.A.No.1098 of 2018 and connected cases, i.e., _**Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Saju Varkey and Others [2018 (4) KHC 617]**_ . Paragraphs 13 to 18 of the said judgment read thus: “13. On a consideration of the submissions made on this issue, we find that the law governing the formulation of schemes is to be found in Sections 99 and 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said provisions mandate that, if the State Government is of the opinion that, for the purpose of providing efficient, adequate, economical and properly guaranteed road transport services in relation to any area or route or operation thereto, these road transport services should be run and operated by the STU’s to the **WP(C).No.18893 of 2017** **5** exclusion, either complete or partial, of private stage carriage operators, a proposal in the official gazette shall be published as provided under Section 99 of the Act. Objections to the said proposal will be invited before the State Government under Section 100, and after considering the objections and after affording an opportunity to the objectors or their representatives, and the representatives of the STU, the State government may approve or modify such proposals. The same procedure is followed for the purposes of modifying an existing scheme, as seen from Section 102. 14. The provisions of Sections 99, 100 and 102 indicate that the procedure to be followed, while introducing a scheme, or modifying an existing one, is one that is designed to ensure transparency and fairness in a matter involving pre-existing rights of private transport operators. It follows, therefore, that there cannot be any finalization of a scheme, which is different from the one that was proposed, and in respect of which objections were invited. The introduction of a restrictive element (in the instant case, the stipulation that the maximum distance limit would apply to the saved permits), while finalising a draft that did not contain such a stipulation has, therefore, to be seen as breaching the aforesaid statutory safeguard. A question arises, however, as to whether, in these cases, the petitioners had a preexisting right, relatable to Ext.P5 scheme, to operate **WP(C).No.18893 of 2017** **6** ordinary and OLS services without any restriction as regards distance? Although the learned counsel for the respondent KSRTC would vehemently contend that the said rights accrued to the private operators, not through Ext.P5 scheme, but only through Ext.P9 G.O., we are of the view that the rights/privileges granted to the petitioners through Ext.P9 G.O. cannot be seen as divorced from Ext.P5. 15. As already noted, Ext.P9 G.O. was issued in the wake of Ext.P7 scheme, that deprived private operators of their right to operate higher class of services in the State, and the rights granted through the G.O. were with a view to ameliorate their situation. The rights that they obtained, in respect of stage carriage operation, were pursuant to Ext.P5 scheme on notified routes and Ext.P9 G.O. for operation in the State. The modification proposed by the State, through Ext.P10 notification, was with a view to incorporate their rights, as obtained through Ext.P9 G.O., in Ext.P5 Scheme, through the modification procedure under Section 102. It is in this backdrop that we have to consider the pre-existing rights of the private transport operators, prior to the modification process. 16. Thus viewed, the conclusion is inescapable that, Ext.P10 draft scheme proposed to retain the rights obtained by the private operators through Ext.P9 G.O, while modifying Ext.P5 Scheme, and while finalising the said draft scheme, the State **WP(C).No.18893 of 2017** **7** Government could not have made the stipulation with regard to maximum distance applicable to the permits saved by Ext.P5 scheme. We therefore find in favour of the petitioners on the said issue and quash Clause (4) of Ext.P13 scheme that makes the maximum distance in Rule 2 (oa) of the KMV Rules applicable to the saved permits. _Re: Challenge to the amendment of the Rule_ 17. As regards the challenge in the writ petitions to the validity of the amendments brought about to the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules through Ext.P12 notification, it needs to be noted that the contentions raised are more or less identical to those raised in respect of the challenge to the modified scheme. It is contended that, insofar as Rule 2 (oa), as amended, contained a stipulation of maximum distance of 140 km, in the definition of Ordinary Limited Stop Services, but this stipulation was not there in the draft Rule that was notified through Ext.P11 notification, the principles of natural justice, as envisaged in the statutory procedure, had been breached, thereby vitiating the amendment and rendering it invalid. Although, at first blush, it appeared to us that the same reasons that led to the quashing of the impugned clause in the modified scheme would lead us to hold the amended Rule also as invalid, we find on a closer scrutiny, that the right to operate ordinary and OLS services, without distance restrictions, was one that accrued to private **WP(C).No.18893 of 2017** **8** operators affected by Exts.P5 and P7 schemes, in terms of the said schemes, read with Ext.P9 G.O. In - other words, there was no pre existing right in the private operators, conferred under the MV Act and Rules, to operate an OLS service. 18. Such being the case, the draft amendment introduced, for the first time, a definition of Ordinary Limited Stop Service in the Rules. Although the definition contained in the draft notification did not stipulate a maximum distance, it is difficult to conceive of any objection that a private operator could have raised against the introduction of a new class of service for the first time. Similarly, the private operators could not have insisted that, the OLS service that was being introduced, had to be one without any stipulation as to maximum distance, for that would tantamount to dictating a policy to the State Government. Under the circumstances, we cannot accept the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that, in introducing a stipulation as regards maximum distance, while finalising the draft Rules, the State Government had breached the statutory procedure. We also note that, as a matter of fact the State Government did consider the objections raised with regard to the stipulation, in the draft Rule, that the vehicle used for the OLS service could not be older than ten years from the date of registration, and removed the said stipulation from the definition of OLS service while notifying the **WP(C).No.18893 of 2017** **9** amended Rule. We therefore reject the challenge to the validity of the amendment, and to Ext.P12 notification that notified the same. The writ petitions are thus partly allowed, quashing clause (4) of Ext.P13 scheme, and repelling the challenge against Ext.P12 notification and the amendment notified thereunder.” (Underline supplied) In the result, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in _**Saju Varkey's case (supra)**_ . **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** AV/6/7 **WP(C).No.18893 of 2017** **10** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT VIDE NO. P.ST. 10/628/1993 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION VIDE NO.536/B2/2016/TRAN.DATED 19.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT VIDE NO. P. TEM. 10/1182/2017 DATED 23.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION VIDE GOP NO. 06/2017/TRAN. DATED 15.03.2017 (S.R.O.NO.127/2017) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION FOR REISSUE OF 4 MONTHS TEMPORARY PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 03.06.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC NO. 12920/2017 DATED 12.04.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT VIDE NO. P. TEM. 10/1315/2017 DATED 09.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION FOR REISSUE OF 4 MONTHS TEMPORARY PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 30.06.2017.**