High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-09-06Disposed of with directions to the Tribunal to ...

C.M. Jayanand v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.28056/2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2022-09-06
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of by setting aside Exts. P7 and P9; directs the 1st respondent Tribunal to consider the appeal and the 4th respondent’s application in an expeditious manner; KSRTC to be impleaded as an affected party; the matter to be decided with expedition.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with directions to the Tribunal to decide the appeal and the 4th respondent’s application expeditiously; KSRTC to be impleaded. Interim orders stayed or vacated as directed by the court, and the petitioner’s challenge to Exts. P7 and P9 is disposed of on merits of disposal directions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

C.M. Jayanand

Respondents

The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam
The Regional Transport Authority, Vatakara, Regional Transport Office, Vatakara
The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Vatakara, Regional Transport Office
Senthil Kumar
Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• I. Dinesh Menon

Counsels for Respondents

• K.V. Gopinathan Nair
• Rajeev Jyothish George
• Deepu Thankan

Case Synopsis & Summary

C.M. Jayanand, an operating stage carriage operator on the Kozhikode–Thrissur route, challenges an interim order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal that permitted the 4th respondent to operate beyond 140 km on the Thalassery–Thrissur corridor (195 km). The petitioner contends that the 4th respondent’s regular permit had expired and renewal was pending, and that the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, amended by the government, restrict operations beyond 140 km; hence the MVAA interim order is improper. The 4th respondent relies on a saved-permit doctrine, claiming the permit remains valid until a new nationalisation scheme or modification under the Motor Vehicles Act is introduced. The Division Bench’s decisions, particularly in W.A. No. 772/2022 and KSRTC and Others v. Saju Varkey, are invoked to support limits on distance and the concept of saved permits. The Court stayed Ext. P7 and later the Tribunal’s modified order, directed impleading KSRTC as an affected party, and ultimately disposed of the petition by directing the Tribunal to consider the appeal and the 4th respondent’s application expeditiously. The decision aligns with earlier Division Bench judgments on route limits, while emphasizing expeditious resolution of the dispute and proper party participation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Motor Vehicle RulesMotor Vehicles Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Saved permits doctrine

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Applicant contends that the 4th respondent cannot operate beyond 140 km per the Kerala Division Bench’s orders and that Ext. P7 interim order is violative of saved-permit principles; seeks setting aside Exts. P7 and P9 and expeditious disposal of the appeal.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents rely on saved-permit doctrine and ongoing interim relief, arguing the 4th respondent’s service falls under saved permits and the Tribunal’s 140 km limitation aligns with Division Bench directives; oppose stoppage during Onam and seek continuation of temporary permits pending renewal.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
KSRTC and Others v. Saju Varkey	2018 (4) KLJ 145	Positive	The Division Bench held that the permits enjoyed by petitioners are saved permits, enabling operation until a valid Scheme of Nationalisation or a modification under the Motor Vehicles Act; this principle is relied upon to justify the 4th respondent’s rights.
W.A. No.772/2022	—	Positive	Division Bench judgment cited to support the 140 km distance limit; the present court follows that approach in allowing the Tribunal’s limits to be considered in light of that decision.
WP(C) No.14788/2020	—	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P4 includes the judgment from WP(C) No.14788/2020; referenced as a record, but not expressly relied upon for a substantive legal rule in the decision.

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 C.M. Jayanand v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam & 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 N.NAGARESH** **TUESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022/15TH BHADRA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 28056 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** **C.M.JAYANAND, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.MAHADEVAN, CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, PERUMBALASSERY, P.O.CHERPU, THRISSUR - 680 561.** **BY ADV I.DINESH MENON** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM - 682 011.** - **2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., VATAKARA - 673 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **3 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., VATAKARA - 673 101.** - **4 SENTHIL KUMAR, S/O.KAILASANATHAN, SREERAJESWARAY HOUSE, SANKARAPURAM, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR - 680 001.** W.P.(C) No.28056/2022 : 2 : **5 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIEF OFFICE, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 034, KADAVALLOR, THRISSUR.** **BY ADV SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.28056/2022 : 3 : ## **N. NAGARESH, J.** ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` ## W.P.(C) No.28056 of 2022 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` _Dated this the 6[th] day of September, 2022_ ## **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The petitioner states that he is an existing stage carriage operator, operating on the route KozhikodeThrissur, operating through stage carriage KL-08AT-5859. The 4[th] respondent also operates a stage carriage in the area. 2. The petitioner states that the route of the 4[th] respondent is more than 140 Km. distance and in view of an amendment brought to the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, the 4[th] respondent cannot operate on the Thalassery-Thrissur route covering a distance of 195 Km. The regular permit held by the 4[th] respondent expired and the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority, Vatakara rejected the W.P.(C) No.28056/2022 : 4 : application submitted by the 4[th] respondent for temporary permit, as per Ext.P2. 3. In appeal MVAA No.109/2022, the Tribunal granted an interim order directing to issue a temporary permit to the 4[th] respondent for two months. The petitioner filed an application for impleading in the MVAA. The petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by the interim order passed by the Tribunal. 4. The petitioner states that the 4[th] respondent is not entitled to operate beyond 140 Km. in the light of the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court. In the entire Kerala State, not even a single service is operating beyond 140 Km. as LSOS. Ext.P7 interim order passed by the Tribunal is violative of the law laid down by this Court in W.A. No.772/2022. Ext.P7 interim order is therefore liable to be set aside. 5. When the writ petition came up for admission, this Court passed an interim order on 30.08.2022 staying the operation of Ext.P7 till the next date of hearing. In the W.P.(C) No.28056/2022 : 5 : meanwhile, the Tribunal passed an order modifying its earlier order. On 02.09.2022, this Court stayed the Tribunal‘s modified order also. 6. The 4[th] respondent resisted the writ petition filing a counter affidavit. The 4[th] respondent submitted that he was holding a regular permit for operating in ThalasseryKozhikode-Thrissur Road, issued on 12.08.1994. The permit was renewed from time to time and it was valid up to 11.08.2014. The 4[th] respondent has submitted application for renewal of regular permit, which application is still pending. 7. Pending the application, the 4[th] respondent was allowed to operate the service on the strength of temporary permits issued. According to the 4[th] respondent, his permit is saved as per the prevailing notifications. The Tribunal modified the interim order granted to the petitioner by limiting the distance within 140 Km. The order of the Tribunal is perfectly in tune with the Division Bench judgment of this Court. The 4[th] respondent contended that the petitioner has filed the writ petition solely with a view to see that the bus W.P.(C) No.28056/2022 : 6 : service of the 4[th] respondent is stopped during the Onam vacation somehow. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent. I have also heard the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel representing the 5[th] respondent-Managing Director, KSRTC. 9. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the 4[th] respondent cannot be granted a Temporary Permit to operate on the route, as the distance exceeds 140 Km. The 4[th] respondent would, however, submit that the permit issued to him is a saved permit. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in _**KSRTC and Others v. Saju Varkey** [2018 (4) KLJ 145]_ has held that permits enjoyed by all the petitioners are “Saved permits”; they thus being entitled to operate at least until such time as a valid Scheme of Nationalisation, or a modification of earlier, is brought in under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. W.P.(C) No.28056/2022 : 7 : According to the petitioner, the 4[th] respondent is not entitled to operate beyond 140 Km. in the light of the orders passed by the Division Bench. 11. The 4[th] respondent would state that in the light of the interim orders of this Court, he has filed application for curtailing the route limiting the distance within 140 Km., and such applications were permitted by this Court and the Tribunal. Therefore, whatever be the legality of Ext.P7 order, the petitioner is legally entitled to seek permit for a distance within 140 Km. 12. In view of the facts and circumstances as narrated above, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal shall consider the appeal and pass final orders thereon, in the light of the submissions now made by the petitioner as well as the 4[th] respondent. Keeping this writ petition alive at this stage will not be in the interest of either of the contesting parties. The writ petition is therefore disposed of setting aside Exts.P7 and P9 and directing the 1[st] respondentTribunal to consider the appeal as well as the application W.P.(C) No.28056/2022 : 8 : filed by the 4[th] respondent in an expeditious manner. The 4[th] respondent shall implead the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation in the appeal, as the KSRTC is an affected party. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/14.09.2022 W.P.(C) No.28056/2022 : 9 : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28056/2022** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO PETITIONER ON THE ROUTE KOZHIKODE - THRISSUR DATED 15/7/2022. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 13/6/2022. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN MVAA NO.109/2022 DATED 20/6/2022. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.14788/2020 DATED 12/01/2022. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CASE STATUS DATED 20/6/2022 OBTAINED FROM COURT WEBSITE. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION DATED 16/8/2022 WITH EXHIBITS. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.P.NO.511/2022 IN MVAA NO.109/2022 DATED 17/8/2022. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN M.P.NO.846/2022 IN M.P.NO.511/2022 IN MVAA NO.109/2022 DATED 31/8/2022 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERIN M.P.NO.846/2022 IN M.P.NO.511/2022 IN MVAA NO.109/2022 DATED 31/8/2022.** SR