High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2018-10-22Disposed of; directions issued to reconsider th...

Batch W.P.(C) Nos. 32791/2017, 32793/2017, 32809/2017, 32837/2017 and 4251/2018, 8571/2018, 18215/2018 v. Government of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).Nos.32791/2017, 32793/2017, 32809/2017, 32837/2017; 4251/2018, 8571/2018, 18215/2018

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Anil K. Narendran
Judgment Date: 2018-10-22
Court Decision / Holding: The court disposed of the petitions by setting aside the State Transport Authority’s June 14, 2017 decision (Ext.P8) that fixed the age limit for stage carriages, along with the consequential RTA orders (Ext.P9/Ext.P10). It directed the STA to reconsider the matter with notice to affected parties, taking into account the Motor Vehicles Act, Rules, and the law laid down in cited precedents. A decision is to be taken expeditiously, within two months from receipt of a certified copy, and until then, status quo in respect of permits/temporary permits should be continued, and regular permits for vehicles exceeding the age limit should be deferred by the RTAs. The petitions are disposed of in terms of the directions in W.P.(C) No.24680 of 2017.”,
Final Disposition: Disposed of; directions issued to reconsider the age-limit fixation with notice to affected parties, and to decide within two months; status quo to continue until fresh orders are passed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Kerala State Private Bus Operators Co-ordination Committee
All Kerala Bus Operators Forum
Ambikadevi
K.N. Godasarman
K.N. Neelakandan Namboodiri
Josy S/o Vas
V.K. Jose
Thrissur District Private Bus Operators Association
T.K. Sathyan
K Hamza
Viswanathan
V.K. Chandran

Respondents

Government of Kerala represented by Secretary, Ministry of Transport, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
State Transport Authority (Kerala), Thiruvananthapuram
The Transport Commissioner, Trans Towers, Vazhutthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram
The Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M. Jithesh Menon
• K. Indu
• P. Deepak
• I. Dinesh Menon
• SRI. I.DINESH MENON (for 4251/2018, 8571/2018, 18215/2018)
• SRI.P.DEEPAK (for 32809/2017, 32837/2017)

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (Special Government Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The common judgment in this batch concerns the State Transport Authority’s June 14, 2017 order fixing the age limit for stage carriages used for fresh regular stage carriage permits, effectively capping their life span at 10 years for certain services. Petitioners—organized associations of stage carriage operators and individual operators—challenged Ext.P8 (and related Ext.P9/Ext.P10 actions) on the ground that fixation of age limits and the differentiation of age limits for various categories (ordinary, city/town, limited stop services) were arbitrary, violative of natural justice, and inconsistent with the Motor Vehicles Act’s broader objective of public safety. Interlocutory orders kept status quo pending adjudication. The Respondents contended that the authorities have statutory power to impose restrictions in the public interest, including age restrictions on vehicles, to ensure safety and public welfare, and cited constitutional and statutory frameworks, including Article 226 of the Constitution and sections of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court, aligning with jurisprudence emphasising safety over private profit and the prerogative to regulate transport for public safety, ultimately set aside the 14.06.2017 decision, directing reconsideration with due notice to affected parties, and directed the RTA/STA to finalize a fresh decision within two months, while maintaining status quo until fresh orders are passed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, Article 226Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Natural justice requires reasoned decision-making
Public safety and passengers’ welfare are paramount in motor vehicle regulation
Public interest can justify restrictions on trade in pursuit of safety
Authorities may fix age/description of vehicles in public interest (K.M. Ismeth Ummer)
Right to trade is subject to statutory restrictions for safety (Mehta)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners challenge the State Transport Authority’s June 14, 2017 order (Ext.P8) that fixed a 10-year life span for limited stop ordinary services (LSOS) and the consequential Regional Transport Authority orders (Ext.P9/Ext.P10). They contend the fixation is arbitrary, lacks reasoned justification, and violates natural justice; it also affects fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) by imposing restrictions on trade without proportionate justification. They seek quashing Ext.P6/Ext.P7 and reinstatement of status quo, arguing that previous judgments clarified the scope of age restrictions and that safety considerations alone cannot bar meaningful competition or operation without due process.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the Motor Vehicles Act vests authority in the STA/RTA to impose age limits and service conditions in the public interest for safety, environmental, and road-safety concerns. They argue the 10-year LSOS limit addresses vehicle quality, safety, and passenger security. They rely on statutory provisions of the MV Act and jurisprudence supporting regulatory restrictions in the public interest. They contend that the right to trade is subject to reasonable restrictions to protect public safety and the integrity of transport operations, and that the Court should not substitute its judgment for the authorities’ regulatory discretion.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P. and others	(1980) 2 SCC 324	Positive	Cited to emphasize that MV Act aims at public safety over private profit and that authorities have a duty to regulate transport for safe and public welfare.
K.M. Ismeth Ummer v. Regional Transport Authority and another	(2011) 15 SCC 288	Positive	Used to justify that the expression 'specified description' in permit restrictions is wide and permissible in public interest, including fixing vehicle age.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India	(1997) 8 SCC 770	Positive	Cited to support the principle that road safety and public welfare guide regulatory powers over transport operators.
Shaheed Khan and others v. State of M.P. and others	(2013 (4) MPLJ 439)	Positive	Referenced to illustrate the emphasis on public safety and regulatory aims in motor vehicle administration.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Batch W.P.(C) Nos. 32791/2017, 32793/2017, 32809/2017, 32837/2017 and 4251/2018, 8571/2018, 18215/2018 v. Government of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 30TH ASWINA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 32791 of 2017** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 KERALA STATE PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE, FIRST FLOOR, TRAVELERS TOWER, SAKTHAN STAND, THRISSUR – 21, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY JOSE KUZHUPPIL. 2 ALL KERALA BUS OPERATORS FORUM, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT BIBIN T. ALAPPAT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.JITHESH MENON SMT.K.INDU** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 039. 2 THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (KERALA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 039.** **3 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 039. 4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR - 680 001.** - **SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).4251/2018, WP(C).8571/2018, WP(C).18215/2018, WP(C).32837/2017, WP(C).32793/2017 AND WP(C).32809/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018. 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 30TH ASWINA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 32793 of 2017** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 AMBIKADEVI, AGED 56, W/O. GODASARMAN, KARIPPALMANAKKAL HOUSE, NEDUMPURA, CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **2 K.N.GODASARMAN, AGED 65, S/O.K.C. NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, KARIPPAL MANA, NEDUMPURA, CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR.** - **3 K.N. NEELAKANDAN NAMBOODIRI, KARIPPAL MANA, NEDUMPURA, CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.JITHESH MENON** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695039.** - **2 THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (KERALA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695039.** - **3 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695039** - **4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, PIN-680001.** **SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).4251/2018, WP(C).8571/2018, WP(C).18215/2018, WP(C).32837/2017, WP(C).32791/2017 AND WP(C).32809/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018. 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 30TH ASWINA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 32809 of 2017** ## **PETITIONERS:** |**1**||**JOSHY,**| |---|---|---| |||**S/O. VASU, PALLIYIL HOUSE,**| |||**P.O.KOLAZHY, THRISSUR.**| |**2**||**V.K. JOSE,**| |||**S/O. KOSHY, VALAYIL HOUSE,**| |||**P.O.VELAPPAYA, THRISSUR.**| |||**BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK**| |**RESPONDENTS**<br>**:**||| |**1**||**GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,**| |||**REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT,**| |||**SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 039**| |**2**||**THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (KERALA),**| |||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 039**| |**3**||**THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,**| |||**TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,**| |||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 039**| |**4**||**THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,**| |||**THRISSUR, PIN - 680 001.**| |||**SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER - SRI. P.SANTHOSH KUMAR**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).4251/2018, WP(C).8571/2018, WP(C).18215/2018, WP(C).32837/2017, WP(C).32793/2017 AND WP(C).32791/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018. 4 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 30TH ASWINA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 32837 of 2017** ## **PETITIONERS:** |**1**|**TRICHUR DISTRICT PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS' ASSOCIATION,**| |---|---| ||**WEST PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR-682020,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. M.S.PREMKUMAR.**| |**2**|**T.K. SATHYAN,**| ||**S/O. MUTHUKUTTAN,**| ||**THAMARASSERY HOUSE, MUDICODE, P.O.,**| ||**PATTIKKAD, THRISSUR.**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK**| ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT,**| ||**SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695039.**| |**2**|**THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (KERALA),**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695039.**| |**3**|**THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,**| ||**TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 039.**| |**4**|**THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,**| ||**THRISSUR, PIN -680 001.**| ||**SPECIAL**|**GOVERNMENT PLEADER**|**GOVERNMENT PLEADER**|**SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR**|| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |**THIS WRIT **|**PETITION **|**(CIVIL) **|**HAVING **|**BEEN FINALLY HEARD **|**ON**| |**22.10.2018,**|**ALONG**|**WITH**|**WP(C).4251/2018,**<br>**WP(C).8571/2018,**||| |**WP(C).18215/2018,**||**WP(C).32793/2017,**||**WP(C).32791/2017**|**AND**| |**WP(C).32809/2017, THE COURT **|||**ON THE **|**SAME DAY DELIVERED **|**THE**| |**FOLLOWING:**|||||| W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018. 5 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 30TH ASWINA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 4251 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** **K. HAMZA, S/O.LATE ALIPPU, KUNNATH HOUSE, THOOTHA.P.O, PERINTHALMANNA, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY NOUFAL.M, S/O.ALAVI, MANGALATH HOUSE, KUNNAPPILLY.P.O,PERINTHALMANNA.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD-678001. 3 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD-678001.** **SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).8571/2018, WP(C).18215/2018, WP(C).32837/2017, WP(C).32793/2017, WP(C).32791/2017 AND WP(C).32809/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018. 6 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 30TH ASWINA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 8571 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** **VISWANATHAN, S/O. PANGU, KONTHATH HOUSE, PARUTHUR P.O., PATTAMBI.** **BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD - 678 001.** **3 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD - 678 001.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).4251/2018, WP(C).18215/2018, WP(C).32837/2017, WP(C).32793/2017, WP(C).32791/2017 AND WP(C).32809/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018. 7 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 30TH ASWINA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 18215 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** **V.K.CHANDRAN, S/O KUMARAN, VAKKATH HOUSE, PATTIKKAD P.O, THRISSUR.** **BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD-678001.** **3 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD-678001.** ## **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).4251/2018, WP(C).8571/2018, WP(C).32837/2017, WP(C).32793/2017, WP(C).32791/2017, WP(C).32809/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018 8 ## **JUDGMENT** The common challenge in this batch of writ petitions is against the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 14.06.2017 regarding the fixation of age limit for stage carriages in applying and granting fresh regular stage carriage permits. Since common issues are raised, these writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2.1. **W.P.(C)No.32791 of 2017:** - This writ petition is filed by the Kerala State Private Bus Operators Co-ordination Committee, Thrissur and All Kerala Bus Operators Forum, Thrissur, which are stated to be registered associations of stage carriage operators. They have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 decision of the 2[nd] respondent State Transport Authority dated 14.06.2017, insofar as it fixes the life span of Limited Stop Ordinary Service as 10 years, and also Ext.P7 consequential decision dated 27.7.2017 of the 4[th] respondent Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur. On 13.10.2017 when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for the W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018 -9- respondents. This Court granted an interim order to maintain status quo with respect to the decision of the 2[nd] respondent State Transport Authority dated 14.6.2017 for a period of one month. The said interim order was extended from time to time. 2.2. **W.P.(C)No.32793 of 2017:** - The petitioners who are stage carriage operators on the route Palakkad - Ottappalam, Thrissur - Kongad and Kodungallur - Irinjalakuda, covered by Exts.P1 to P3 stage carriage permits in respect of stage carriages bearing registration Nos.KL-48/1000; KL-48/8145; and KL-48/A2777 respectively, have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P12 decision of the 2[nd] respondent State Transport Authority dated 14.06.2017, insofar as it fixes the life span of Limited Stop Ordinary Service as 10 years, and also Ext.P13 consequential decision dated 27.7.2017 of the 4[th] respondent Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that Exts.P12 and P13, insofar as it fixes the life span of the services operated as limited stop ordinary services as 10 years is only in respect of stage carriages W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018 -10- which were operating as super class services on routes in excess of 140 KMs, as clarified by this Court in Ext.P10 judgment. On 13.10.2017 when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for the respondents. This Court granted an interim order to maintain status quo with respect to the decision of the 2[nd] respondent State Transport Authority dated 14.6.2017 for a period of one month. The said interim order was extended from time to time. 2.3. **W.P.(C)No.32809 of 2017** :- The petitioners who are stage carriage operators on the route Medical CollegeOttappalam and Ottappalam-Guruvayur respectively covered by Exts.P1 and P1(a) regular permits in respect of stage carriages bearing registration Nos.KL-45/C-9111 and KL-08/AL-5009 have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 decision of the 2[nd] respondent State Transport Authority dated 14.06.2017, insofar as it fixes the life span of Limited Stop Ordinary Service as 10 years, and also Ext.P7 consequential decision dated 13.07.2017 of the 4[th] respondent Regional W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018 -11- Transport Authority. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that Exts.P6 and P7, insofar as it fixes the life span of the services operated as limited stop ordinary services as 10 years is only in respect of stage carriages which were operating as super class services on routes in excess of 140 KMs, as clarified by this Court in Ext.P3 judgment. On 13.10.2017, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for the respondents. This Court granted an interim order to maintain status quo with respect to the decision of the 2[nd] respondent State Transport Authority dated 14.6.2017 for a period of one month. The said interim order was extended from time to time. - 2.4. **W.P.(C)No. 32837 of 2017:** The 1[st] petitioner, Thrissur District Private Bus Operators Association, is stated to be registered association of stage carriage operators in Thrissur District and the 2[nd] petitioner is a stage carriage operator on the route Kodungallur - Pathiripala covered by a regular permit in respect of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-08/AE-41 W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018 -12- operating as limited stop ordinary service. They have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 decision of the 2[nd] respondent State Transport Authority dated 14.06.2017, insofar as it fixes the life span of Limited Stop Ordinary Service as 10 years and also Ext.P10 consequential decision dated 13.07.2017 of the 4[th] respondent Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that Exts.P9 and P10, insofar as it fixes the life span of the services operated as limited stop ordinary services as 10 years is only in respect of stage carriages which were operating as super class services on routes in excess of 140 KMs, as clarified by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment. On 13.10.2017, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for the respondents. This Court granted an interim order to maintain status quo with respect to the decision of the 2[nd] respondent State Transport Authority dated 14.06.2017 for a period of one month. The said interim order was extended from time to time. W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018 -13- 2.5. **W.P.(C)No.4251 of 2018:** - The petitioner who is a stage carriage operator on the route Pattambi-Palakkad as Limited Stop Ordinary Service covered by Ext.P1 regular permit in respect of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-10-Y/3789 has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 decision of the State Transport Authority, insofar as it fixes the life span of Limited Stop Ordinary Service as 10 years. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent State Transport Authority to reconsider the issue relating to fixation of age limit of vehicles to be operated as LSOS with notice and opportunity of being heard to the permit holders. On 08.02.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Special Government Pleader took notice for the respondents. This Court granted an interim order to maintain status quo with respect to Ext.P4 decision of the State Transport Authority dated 14.6.2017 for a period of one month. The said interim order was extended from time to time. ## 2.6. **W.P.(C)No.8571 of 2018:** - The petitioner is a stage W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018 -14- carriage operator on the route Ponnani-Palakkad covered by Ext.P1 regular permit in respect of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-09/R-2593 operating as LSOS service has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 decision of the 1[st] respondent State Transport Authority, insofar as it fixes the life span of Limited Stop Ordinary Service as 10 years also Ext.P6 consequential decision dated 28.12.2017 of the 4[th] respondent Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent State Transport Authority to reconsider the issue relating to fixation of age limit of vehicles to be operated as LSOS with notice and opportunity of being heard to the permit holders. On 19.03.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for the respondents. This Court granted an interim order to maintain status quo with respect to Ext.P5 decision of the State Transport Authority dated 14.6.2017 and Ext.P6 decision of the Regional Transport Authority dated 28.12.2017 for a period of one month. W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018 -15- The said interim order was extended from time to time. - 2.7. **W.P.(C)No.18215 of 2018:** The petitioner, who is a stage carriage operator on the route Meenakshipuram- Thrissur covered by Ext.P1 regular permit in respect of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-08/AN-7779 has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 decision of the 2[nd] respondent Regional Transport Authority dated 28.12.2017, which imposes a condition to produce vehicle in conformity with Ext.P3 decision of the 1[st] respondent State Transport Authority dated 14.06.2017 for the purpose of renewal of permit. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus directing the 3[rd] respondent Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority to issue the renewed permit on the route Meenakshipuram- Thrissur in respect of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-08/AN7779. On 05.06.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for the respondents. This Court granted an interim order to maintain status quo with respect to Ext.P3 decision of the State Transport W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018 -16- Authority dated 14.6.2017 for a period of one month. The said interim order was extended from time to time. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in the respective writ petitions and also the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 4. The challenge made against the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 14.06.2017, insofar as it relates to fixation of age limit for stage carriages in applying and granting fresh stage carriage permits was the issue raised in W.P. (C)No.24680 of 2017 and connected cases. By the judgment dated 15.10.2018, those writ petitions are disposed of by setting aside the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 14.06.2017 and the said authority is directed to reconsider the matter. Paragraphs 17 to 25 and the last paragraph of the said judgment read thus: “17. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 14.6.2017 (Ext.P8 in W.P.(C)No.24680/2017) fixing age limit for stage carriages in applying and granting fresh W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018 -17- regular stage carriage permits cannot be sustained in law, as the same is one issued in fragrant violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, no reasons whatsoever have been stated in the said decision, in support of fixation of age limits for stage carriages. 18. In **Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P. [(1980) 2** **SCC 324)** , the Apex Court in the context of the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 held that the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act are geared to public safety and not private profit and casts a solemn duty upon the authorities to protect Indian lives moving in buses, walking on roads, or even standing on margins. This aspect is exemplified on a bare perusal of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, which makes it luminously clear that the Act has been enacted not for granting benefit to stage carriage operators or facilitate or guarantee profit and benefits to transport operators, but the object of regulating the entire field of motor vehicles, transport, traffic, road safety, compensation to victims of motor accidents, security, comfort and protection of passengers, public safety, prevention of pollution, protection of road conditions, regulation and control of transport vehicles including provision for grant of permits, preventing unhealthy competitions between the transporters amongst several other issues relating to motor vehicle and transports. It is therefore clear from a W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018 -18- perusal of the provisions of the Act that the extent of the right to operate stage carriages under the Act is subservient and subject to the right, amongst others, to safe and secure transport of the travelling passengers and the right to pollution free environment and good road conditions of the public at large. [Paragraph 77: **Shaheed Khan and others v. State of M.P. and others (2013 (4) MPLJ 439)** ]. 19. In **K.M.Ismeth Ummer v. Regional Transport Authority and anr. [(2011) 15 SCC 288]** , the Apex Court, in the context of Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, held that the expression ' _specified description_ ' is very wide and, therefore, the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act are perfectly justified in placing restrictions for grant of the permit in public interest, which would include fixing the age of the vehicle also. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.24680/2017 would contend that when the direction contained in Ext.P6 judgment of this Court dated 15.12.2016 in W.P.(C)No.33980/2015 and connected cases, while ordering reconsideration of the matter by the State Transport Authority, was only for fixation of maximum age of the vehicle to be used for conducting ordinary stage carriage services in the State, the 4[th] respondent State Transport Authority was not W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018 -19- justified in fixing different age limits for ordinary stage carriages, city/town stage carriages and limited stop ordinary services, etc. 21. As held by the Apex Court in **K.M.Ismeth Ummer's case (supra)** , the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act have the authority in placing restrictions for the grant of permit, in public interest, including fixation of the age of the vehicle. Therefore, any decision taken by the State Transport Authority in fixing different age limits for different types of stage carriage is legally permissible. 22. In **M.C.Mehta v. Union of India [(1997)8 SCC 770)** , a Three Bench Judge of the Apex Court held that the existing provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 alone are sufficient to clothe the members of the Police force and the transport authorities with ample powers to control and regulate the traffic in appropriate manner, so that no vehicle being used in a public place, causes any danger to the public in any form. The requirement of maintaining the motor vehicle in the manner prescribed and its use if roadworthy in a manner, which does not endanger the public, has to be ensured by the authorities and this is the aim of the provisions enacted in the Motor Vehicles Act. 23. Though the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions, who are stage carriage operators, have a W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018 -20- fundamental right to trade and commerce, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, the said right cannot be extended or stretched to encompass a fundamental right to operate stage carriages unfettered by any conditions or restrictions in total disregard to the security, safety and convenience of the passengers and the public at large. Their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is inferior and subordinate and has to give way to the paramount consideration of the public safety, security and convenience of the passengers and other relevant considerations under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder. 24. In the result, these writ petitions are disposed of by setting aside the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 14.6.2017 (Ext.P8 in W.P. (C)No.24680/2017), and the said Authority is directed to reconsider the matter, with notice to the affected parties, including the stage carriage operators in the State, and take an appropriate decision regarding fixation of the age limits for stage carriages in applying and granting fresh regular stage carriage permits, taking note of the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra. 25. A decision in this regard shall be taken, as W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018 -21- expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till such orders are passed, status quo as on this date in respect of the permits/temporary permits, if any, issued to the petitioners shall be continued, if found necessary by issuing temporary permit of two months' duration to operate the service. Based on the orders passed by the State Transport Authority, the respective Regional Transport Authorities shall pass revised orders on the application preferred by the petitioners for grant of regular permit, if situation warrants. It is also ordered that till a fresh decision is taken by the State Transport Authority, based on the direction contained in this judgment, the issuance of regular permit for conducting stage carriage operation, with stage carriages above the age limit specified in the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 14.6.2017, shall be deferred by all the Regional Transport Authorities in the State.” 5. In view of the judgment of this Court in W.P. (C)No.24680 of 2017 and connected cases dated 15.10.2018, these writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the directions contained therein. Since the decision of the State Transport W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018 -22- Authority dated 14.06.2017 has already been set aside, the consequential decision of the Regional Transport Authority, which is impugned in these writ petitions is also set aside. The directions contained in paragraphs 24 and 25 and also the last paragraph of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.24680 of 2017 shall govern the respective stage carriage operators, who are the petitioners in these writ petitions. The interim order granted by this Court in these writ petitions to maintain status quo in respect of the respective permits shall continue till a decision is taken by the State Transport Authority, as directed in the judgment dated 15.10.2018 in W.P.(C)No.24680 of 2017. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** dsn W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018 -23- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32791/2017** **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.11.2015.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 20.8.2015. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 29.2.2016. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 21172/2016 DATED 23.11.2016.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 8693/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 15.12.2016. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.6.2017.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 27.7.2017 IN ITEM 55.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL** W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018 -24- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32793/2017** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 22.4.2014 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED .... OF THE 2ND PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE STATE CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED .... OF THE 3RD PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE KL48/1000** - **EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE KL** - **EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE KL** **EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.11.2015** - **EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 20.8.2015** - **EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 29.2.2016** - **EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.21172/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 23.11.2016** - **EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.24607/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 15.12.2016** - **EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.6.2017** - **EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 27.7.2017 IN ITEM 55** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL** W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018 -25- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32809/2017** **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE SECOND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-45/C 9111. EXHIBIT P2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-08/AL 5009. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C).NUMBER 17298 OF 2016 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 23.11.2016. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2016 IN WPC NO. 33980 OF 2015. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA (RELEVANT EXTRACT) FOR THE MEETING OF THE STA HELD ON 14.06.2017. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 14.06.2017. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 13.07.2017 IN ITEM NO. 55 ADOPTING THE DECISION OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 14.06.2017.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL** W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018 -26- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32837/2017** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-08/AE 41.** **EXHIBIT P2** **TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 20/08/2015.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 18/11/2015.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 29/02/2016.** - **EXHIBIT P5** **TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WPC NUMBER 17298 OF 2016 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 23/11/2016.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RTA, ERNAKULAM DATED 17/08/2015.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2016 IN WPC. NO. 33980 OF 2015.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA (RELEVANT EXTRACT) FOR THE MEETING OF THE STA HELD ON 14/06/2017.** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 14/06/2017.** - **EXHIBIT P10** **TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 13/07/2017 IN ITEM NO. 55 ADOPTING THE DECISION OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 14/06/2017.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL** W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018 -27- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4251/2018** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT OF PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK OF KL-10 Y 3789.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 6.1.2016 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 14.06.2017 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP(C)NO.32793/2017 DATED 13.10.2017.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL** W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018 -28- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8571/2018** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT OF PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUING TIMINGS TO PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK OF KL-09 R 2593 EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL APPLICATION DATED 22.12.2017 EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF STA DATED 14.06.2017 EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF RTA PALAKKAD DATED 28.12.2017 EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP(C)NO.32793/2017 DATED 13.10.2017** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL** W.P.(C)Nos.32791, 32793, 32809 & 32837 of 2017 and 4251, 8571 & 18215 of 2018 -29- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18215/2018** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT OF PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 28.12.2017. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STA CIRCULAR DATED 14.6.2017. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP(C) NO.33980/15 DATED 15.12.2016. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) 32793/2017 DATED 13.10.2017.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL** csl