KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** ## **THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 27780 of 2013 (V)** ## **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER:** ## **--------------------** **KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN,FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY CHIEF LAW OFFICER,P.SURESH KUMAR** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** ## **--------------------------** **1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001** **2. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001** **3. K.THRIVIKRAMAN, DEVI-VRA(B) 90 TC15/1858,VAZHUTHAKADU,THYKKADU P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014** ## ***ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED** **-----------------------------------** - ***ADDL.R4 MURALEEDHARAN NAIR. A., S/O. APPUKUTTAN NAIR, SAROJANI NIVAS, TC 31/230(2) NEAR CHAKA ITI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ***IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO. 4 AS PER ORDER DATED 15/11/2017 IN IA NO. 18388/2017 IN WPC 27780/2013 AND ORDER DATED 24/01/2018 IN WPC 27789/2013** **R1 & R2 BY SPL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-11-2017, ALONG WITH WPC. 27789/2013, AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON 30-11-2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sdr/-** ## **WP(C).No. 27780 of 2013 (V)** ## **--------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **----------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **--------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE DECISION DATED 2-2-2012 AS ITEM NO 14 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 14-07-2009** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MVARP 131/2013 DATED 1O-04-2013 FILED BY THE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN MVARP 131/2013 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REPLY AFFIDAVIT WITH OUT EXHIBITS FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN MVARP 131/13** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10-10-2013 IN MVARP 131/13 AND CONNECTED CASE** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 24-11-1994** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29-12-1994** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-06-2013 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **EXT.R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER DATED 22.08.2011** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **PA TO JUDGE** **sdr/-** ## **C.R.** ## **SHAJI P. CHALY, J.** -------------------------------------------------- **W.P.(C) Nos.27780, 27789, 27792, 27896 & 29149 of 2013 & 25404 of 2015 & 7571, 21603 & 23054 of 2016 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 30[th] day of November, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** The captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of the issue regarding grant, variation and extension of permit, or declining the same to the stage carriages operated on account of the 100 stage carriage permits operated by the private operators in Thiruvananthapuram city, as per Sec.71 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. W.P.(C) Nos.27780, 27896, and 29149 of 2013 are filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'KSRTC') against the renewal and variation and variation of the permits respectively granted by the Regional Transport Authority (for short, 'RTA'), affirmed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'STAT'), whereas, W.P.(C) Nos.25404 of 2015, 21603 and 23054 of 2016 are filed by private stage carriage operators challenging interference with grant of variation of permit by the Tribunal and, denial of permits and declining variation/extension of permits by the **W.P.(C) No.27780/13 & con. cases** 2 authority respectively, and declining benefits by the STAT. 3. W.P.(C) Nos.27792 and 27789 of 2013 are filed by the KSRTC against grant of permit to the private operators. W.P.(C) No.7571 of 2016 is filed by a private operator against revocation of the extension already granted. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to deliver a common judgment. 4. Brief history of grant of 100 permits in Thiruvananthapuram city is required for the disposal of these writ petitions. In Thiruvananthapuram city, stage carriage services were exclusively operated by the KSRTC as per the complete exclusion scheme. The scheme was modified, to permit private operators to operate 100 city permits by notification No.105/94/PW & T dated 24.11.1994. On the basis of the notification allowing private operators, 100 permits were allowed as per notification No.108/94/PW & T dated 24.11.1994, evident from Exts.P1 and P2 respectively in W.P. (C) No.23054 of 2016. 5. On the basis of these notifications, the Regional Transport Authority decided to allot permits in 50 routes, with 2 permits each, and applications were invited specifying the **W.P.(C) No.27780/13 & con. cases** 3 routes. Thereupon, applications were submitted by various stage carriage operators and 100 permits were issued, and the private stage carriages were operating on various routes within the Thiruvananthapuram city. While so, G.O.(P) No.42/2009/Tran. dated 14.07.2009 was issued by the State Government, notifying a new scheme in order to enable the State Transport Undertaking to operate in supersession of the earlier notifications given in the Annexure to the notification, which thus means, notification G.O.(P)No.42/2009/Tran. dated 14.07.2009 was brought into force, allegedly defacing all other existing notifications. 6. During the course of time, private stage carriage operators applied for, variation and extension, of the existing permits in other routes in the Thiruvananthapuram city and grant of permit in vacancies arose within the 100 city permits. 7. W.P.(C) No.25404 of 2015 is filed by a private stage carriage operator. As per Ext.P3 order, the variation granted in the existing route Nettayam - Pongumoodu was varied by 2.50 kms. from PMG - Palayam - Statute - Over-bridge. The total route length is 16.5 kms and the permissible overlapping is 850 metres. The variation was granted on 08.11.2012. **W.P.(C) No.27780/13 & con. cases** 4 According to the State Road Transport Corporation, the extension granted objectionably overlaps Thiruvananthapuram - Chirayinkeezhu notified route, as per notification dated 14.07.2009. The STAT interfered with the order of the RTA, and allowed the appeal filed by the KSRTC, also overruling the objection raised by the private operator in respect of the maintainability of the appeal. It is thus challenging the said order, the writ petition is filed. 8. W.P.(C) No.23054 of 2016 is filed by a private stage carriage operator against the judgment of the Tribunal in MVAA No.191/2015, declining to interfere with the order passed by the RTA, refusing to grant variation on the route Pongummoodu - Pappanamcode, on the ground that the same overlaps Thiruvananthapuram - Varkala notified route. W.P. (C) No.21603 of 2016 is also filed by a private stage carriage operator challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the RTA declining deviation of route directed to be considered by the Tribunal in MVAA No.262 of 2015, filed by the private operator against the decision of the RTA, refusing to grant variation/extension from Jagathy to Peyad and from Pongummoodu to Sreekaryam finding that the same objectionably overlaps **W.P.(C) No.27780/13 & con. cases** 5 Thiruvananthapuram - Varkala route. The said appeal was partly allowed directing to grant variation of permit from Jagathy to Pallimukku and further directed to re-consider deviation of route. 9. W.P.(C) No.27896 of 2013 is filed by the KSRTC against the order of the Tribunal in MVARP No.130 of 2013 filed by the KSRTC against grant of extension of 16 kms. from Kudappanakunnu to Peroorkada, alleging objectionable overlapping of 13 kms. from Palayam - Mannanthala on Thiruvananthapuram - Kottayam notified route. 10. W.P.(C) No.27780 of 2013 is filed by the KSRTC against the order in MVARP No.131 of 2013 challenging grant of variation of permit on the route Sreekaryam - Kochuveli wherein, according to the KSRTC, objectionable overlapping is 2.5 kms., on the notified route Thiruvananthapuram - Varkala, which was affirmed by the Tribunal. 11. W.P.(C) No.29149 of 2013 is filed by the KSRTC against the order of the Tribunal in MVAA No.97/2013, affirming the order of the RTA, granting variation in the existing route Pongumoodu - Nettayam, having a total length of 16.5 kms., which according to the KSRTC, overlaps **W.P.(C) No.27780/13 & con. cases** 6 Thiruvananthapuram - Chirayinkeezhu notified route. However, the Tribunal affirmed the order of the RTA. 12. W.P.(C) No.27792 of 2013 is filed by the KSRTC against the order of the Tribunal in MVARP No.133 of 2013, affirming the grant of fresh permit on the route Nalanchira - Vazhayila, allegedly overlapping Thiruvananthapuram - Kottayam notified route and the Tribunal affirmed the order of the RTA. 13. W.P.(C) No.27789 of 2013 is filed by the KSRTC against the order of the Tribunal in MVARP No.132 of 2013, affirming grant of fresh regular permit on the route Neeramankara-Pongumoodu, allegedly overlapping Thiruvananthapuram - Chirayinkeezhu notified route. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the RTA. W.P.(C) No.7571 of 2016 is filed by a private operator against denial of variation by the RTA on the route Kundamankadavu - Devaswom Board Junction and affirmed in MVAA No.248 of 2015 by the Tribunal. 14. Heard respective counsel and perused the pleadings and documents on record, and the respective counsel and the learned Special Government Pleader addressed arguments in accordance with the pleadings put forth. **W.P.(C) No.27780/13 & con. cases** 7 15. So far as the writ petitions of the KSRTC are concerned, the Tribunal has passed the orders holding that the 100 city permits granted to private stage carriage operators within the Thiruvananthapuram city are exclusively reserved for the private operators, and the notification issued by the State Government on 14.07.2009 will not in any manner interfere with the 100 permits granted as per the notification issued during the year 1994, and therefore, variation/extension can be granted. However, in some of the cases, the Tribunal held that, while 100 permits were granted during the year 1994, to private stage carriage operators to operate within the Thiruvananthapuram city, it was in exclusion to the then existing notifications. 16. However, when a fresh notification is issued, in the year 2009, except as provided under clauses 4 and 5 of the said notification, no such exercise can be undertaken by the authority. It is also held therein that, as per clause 19 of notification, 2009, the right to operate new services and to increase trips in the 31 routes in the Annexure or its portions will be reserved exclusively for State Transport Undertaking. Therefore, it can be seen that, two sets of orders are passed **W.P.(C) No.27780/13 & con. cases** 8 by the STAT, which are repelling in nature. Therefore, the question to be decided is, whether interference in notification dated 14.07.2009, is possible to grant variation, extension and fresh permits to 100 existing permits enjoyed by the private stage carriages within the city of Thiruvananthapuram. 17. Learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC has invited my attention to the judgments of the apex court in ' _**Mohd. Ashfaq v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P. and others'**_ [AIR 1976 SC 2161], _**'A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Regional Transport Authority and another**_ ' [(2005) 4 SCC 391], _**'Venkataswamy Reddy v. State Transport Authority'**_ [2016 (3) KLT 638 (SC)], _**'Ram Krishna Verma and others v. State of U.P. and others'**_ [(1992) 2 SCC 620], _**'Nilkanth Prasad and others v. State of Bihar and others'**_ [AIR 1962 SC 1135], _**'M/s. Standard Motor Union Private Ltd. v. The State of Kerala and others'**_ [AIR 1969 SC 273], and Division Bench judgments of this Court in _**'Akash Dev v. State of Kerala and others'**_ [2015 (3) KLJ 32], _**'Luka Devassia v. Regional Transport & others'**_ [2015 (3) KLJ 76], _**'Krishnan v. R.T.O., Palghat'**_ [1991 (2) KLT 302] and the judgments of the learned Single **W.P.(C) No.27780/13 & con. cases** 9 Judge in _**'P.A. Jose v. R.T.A and others'**_ [1992 (1) KLJ 665] and _**'Sukumar K.K. v. Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam and others'**_ [2013 (4) KHC 411], to canvass the proposition that once a scheme is notified, then the provisions of the scheme will apply and irrespective of whether the private operators have secured city permits or not, the rigour of the notification remains good, subject to the riders provided thereunder. 18. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has invited my attention specifically to the judgment in _**'A.P. State Road Transport Corporation**_ ' ( _supra_ ) and contended that, as a result of nationalization of the service, no permits can be issued for operating transport vehicles in favour of private operators. It is also contended that, the net effect of the nationalization of the service is dis-entitlement of the private operators to obtain permits for plying vehicles. Therefore, according to the learned Standing Counsel, even though the private operators can operate on the strength of 100 permits granted, within the Thiruvananthapuram city, on the route provided to them, they are not entitled to seek, variation of the permit, grant of permit and extension of permits in view of ## **W.P.(C) No.27780/13 & con. cases** 10 the notification issued on 14.07.2009 notifying schemes, enabling the KSRTC to operate exclusively on the notified routes. 19. Learned Standing Counsel also submitted that, in view of the peremptory provisions contained under Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the private operators cannot canvass for the proposition that they are entitled to operate objectionably overlapping the notified routes as per the notification dated 14.07.2009. In my considered opinion, the Division Bench judgments of this Court in _**'Akash Dev'**_ and _**'Luka Devassia'**_ ( _supra_ ) have taken care of the situations pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC, wherein, it is held that, city routes are akin to any other route and the provisions of Chapter VI apply even in respect of city routes and the prohibition under Sec.104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in granting permits except in accordance with the scheme applies even in respect of a city route as mentioned in Sec.71(3)(a). It is also held in _**'Luka Devassia'**_ ( _supra_ ) that, clause (4) of the scheme, has not created a situation by which the existing operators' rights have been totally taken away. The proposition of law laid down by the apex court in the ## **W.P.(C) No.27780/13 & con. cases** 11 judgments referred to above, have also laid down the law that, once a notification is issued, notifying area or route for exclusive operation of the vehicles by the KSRTC, no permits can be granted violating the provisions of the scheme. 20. In my considered opinion, the judgment in _**'A.P. State Road Transport Corporation**_ ' ( _supra_ ) is an authority to the issue and paragraphs 3, 7 and 21 would be relevant, and read thus: _“3. The appeals raise two main issues:_ _(1) The Scheme covers mofussil service and provides for total exclusion of private operators including operators on town service routes. Even routes overlapping with the notified mofussil service stood covered. In view of this, is it permissible for the Regional Transport Authority to grant permits to private operators on the notified town service routes or portions thereof?_ _(2) Exception 2 in the note appended to the Scheme is: “the existing town services operating on the notified routes”. Does the exception relate only to existing town services operating on the notified routes meaning thereby that fresh or future applicants for grant of permit are excluded?_ _(7) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Scheme covers the entire mofussil service which means that all the routes falling within the particular mofussil service are covered under the Scheme. This will cover the overlapping routes and the town service routes. Unless it is so, the object of the Scheme, which is to provide cheap and efficient service to the commuters, will stand defeated. “Service” is a word having wider connotation as compared to the word “route”. Route may mean a particular route while_ ## **W.P.(C) No.27780/13 & con. cases** 12 _service would include all the routes in a particular mofussil. When the entire service in the mofussil area is nationalized, all the routes falling within the mofussil automatically get nationalized, which will cover the town service routes also. As a result of nationalization of the service no permits can be issued for operating transport vehicles in favour of private operators. He has drawn our attention to the definition of the word “permit” contained in clause (31) of Section 2 of the Act according to which permit means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or authority prescribed in this behalf under this Act authorising the use of motor vehicle as a transport vehicle. In view of this definition of the word “permit”, it is submitted, it means that no one can ply a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle without a valid permit. The net effect of nationalization of the service is that the private operators become disentitled to obtain permits for plying vehicles for hire._ _21. For all these reasons, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the Full Bench in the impugned judgment. In our view, under Exception 2 contained in the note appended to the Scheme, subject-matter of the present appeals, permits can be issued only to existing town services operating on the notified routes. This means only existing operators on the notified routes are eligible for permits. Fresh applicants or future applicants are totally ineligible for getting permits for town services operating on notified routes. These appeals are accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.”_ 21. Therefore, it can be seen that the position of law, is so well settled in that regard. In order to exemplify the situation, it is only apposite to appreciate the situation while granting 100 city permits as per the notification issued during the year 1994, while various notifications were pending ## **W.P.(C) No.27780/13 & con. cases** 13 enabling the KSRTC to have exclusive operation. In that fact circumstances, it can be seen that, the 100 city permits granted to private stage carriage operators is creating a special circumstance, irrespective of the exclusive operation of the KSRTC. 22. However, the situation is entirely different when notification is issued in the year 2009, wherein, the operation of existing private stage carriage operators is restricted, and also notified that the 31 routes under the notification dated 14.07.2009 can be operated only by KSRTC, subject to the 100 city permits and the conditions incorporated thereunder. 23. The evaluation of fact situations, discussion made above and reckoning the proposition of law laid down by the apex court and this Court, lead me to a conclusion that the 100 city permits granted to the private stage carriage operators are subject to the notification dated 14.07.2009. This is more so due to the exclusive provisions contained under Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 24. To exemplify the situation, a reference to Sec.99 of Chapter VI of the Act would be worthwhile, wherein, the preparation and publication of proposal regarding road ## **W.P.(C) No.27780/13 & con. cases** 14 transport service of a State transport undertaking is dealt with. In accordance with the stipulations contained thereunder, where any State Government is of the opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services in general or any particular class of such service in relation to _**any area or route or potion thereof**_ should be run and operated by the State transport undertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise, the State Government may formulate a proposal regarding the scheme giving particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be and other relevant particulars respecting thereto, and shall publish such proposal in the Official Gazette of the State formulating such proposal and in not less than one newspaper in the regional language circulating in the area or route proposed to be covered by such scheme and also in such other manner as the State Government formulating such proposal deem fit. 25. The stipulations contained in the said provision are, therefore, self-explanatory. It is after making requisite ## **W.P.(C) No.27780/13 & con. cases** 15 publication in order to enable the general public to know about the proposal for issuing a notification, a notification is issued. Sub-section (2) to Sec.99 further stipulates that, after the publication of the proposal, no permit shall be granted to any person, except a temporary permit during the pendency of the proposal, and such temporary permit shall be valid only for a period of one year from the date of its issue or till the date of final publication of the scheme under Sec.100, whichever is earlier. 26. In accordance with Sec.100, on publication of the proposal in respect of a scheme, any person is entitled to submit any objection to the proposal, within thirty days from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette, before the State Government. Other stipulations are contained in Sec.100, wherein the State Government is bound under law to consider the proposal taking into account the objection submitted by any person, and thereafter only a scheme is published in the Official Gazette, which shall be thereafter called “the approved scheme”. On an appreciation of the provisions discussed above, it is clear that, if at all the private operators had any objection with respect to the issuance of the ## **W.P.(C) No.27780/13 & con. cases** 16 notification, they ought to have raised objection, and if they have raised objection, the same had been considered by the State Government and an approved scheme is notified in the Gazette. Later on, they are not entitled to turn around and claim any rights based on the city permits granted to them. 27. Here, in these writ petitions, the approved scheme is not under challenge. The only claim raised is that, the city permits are special permits granted to operate within the city and the same has overriding effect over the notification issued. Therefore, it can be seen that, once an approved scheme is notified in the Gazette, the only avenue available to a private operator is under the proviso to Sec.104 of Chapter VI of the Act, 1988, by which, temporary permits can be granted to any person in respect of such notified area or notified route subject to the condition that, such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the State transport undertaking in respect of that area or route. 28. In my considered opinion, the proviso to Sec.104 makes it abundantly clear that, after publication of an approved notification, the liberty of a private operator is confined to the proviso to Sec.104, and that too, when the ## **W.P.(C) No.27780/13 & con. cases** 17 State transport undertaking is not operating sufficient services in any notified area or notified route. Therefore, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the private operators to the effect that, Notification, 2009 is dealing with “mofussil services” and which has no bearing to city permits provided to the operators, cannot be sustained under law, especially for the reason that, “permit” is defined under Sec.2(31) to mean; a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or an authority prescribed in this behalf under the Act, authorising the use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle. Therefore, there is no distinction drawn under the Act between a “mofussil permit” and a “city permit”. There is no route also, as a “mofussil route”, since as per Sec.2(38), “route” to mean; a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another. Such a contention cannot also be advanced in view of the definition provided under Sec.2(1) “area” which means, such area as the State Government may, having regard to the requirements of that provision, specify by notification in the Official Gazette. ## **W.P.(C) No.27780/13 & con. cases** 18 29. That apart, in my considered opinion, the concept of issuing such notification is for the purpose of undertaking and discharging the need of the public by providing adequate, efficient, cheaper and comfortable transport system, apart from creating avenues for employment under the Public Sector. Above all, Sec.98 of Chapter VI has overriding effect over Chapter-V and other laws. Therefore, if and when the variation or grant, or extension are sought by the private stage carriage operators holding city permits, it can only be granted subject to the scheme propounded under the provisions of 2009 notification. 30. In that view of the matter, private stage carriage operators cannot insist, as of right, that they are entitled to secure variation, grant and extension in spite of the prohibition contained under 2009 notification. Accordingly, the KSRTC is entitled to succeed in all the writ petitions specified above in respect of the questions raised, as is discussed above, and the writ petitions filed by the private operators against declining grant, variation/extension are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I do so. ## **W.P.(C) No.27780/13 & con. cases** 19 31. However, in the orders passed in favour of the private operators by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, against which KSRTC has preferred the writ petitions, it is observed that, KSRTC has not made out a case before the Tribunal in respect of the alleged overlapping. Various factual circumstances are taken into consideration by the Tribunal to hold so. In that view of the matter, I think it is only appropriate that the Regional Transport Authority is directed to consider the applications submitted by the private operators in respect of the alleged objectionable overlapping pointed out by the KSRTC. 32. Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of, holding that private operators with city permits are not entitled to secure any grant, variation or extension of permits in violation of 2009 notification. However, there will be a direction that the subject matter in respect of variation/extension, to the extent of ascertaining objectionable overlapping shall be considered by the RTA in accordance with law, and after providing notice of hearing to private operators as well as the KSRTC, and attain finality within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The interim orders secured **W.P.(C) No.27780/13 & con. cases** 20 by the private operators from this Court and also operating on account of the variation/extension granted by the RTA and affirmed by the Tribunal shall continue, till such time a decision is taken by the RTA, as directed above. Sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** St/25.11.2017