Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.27312 OF 2013(L)** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MVAA 393/2013 OF S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONER:** ## **MANAGING DIRECTOR** **KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,TRANSPORT BHAVAN,FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,CHIEF LAW OFFICER,P.SURESH KUMAR.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **2 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY PATHANAMTHITTA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PIN689645.** - **4 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,PATHANAMTHITTA,PIN689645.** - **5 PHILIP CHERIAN THEKKANAL HOUSE,KULATHOOR.P.O,MALLAPALLY,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689588.** ## **SPL GP. MOTOR VEHICLES. P. SANTHOSH KUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.27312 OF 2013(L) 2 ## JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is the State Transport Undertaking of the Government of Kerala, has approached this Court seeking the following prayers. "a) Issue a writ in the form of a declaration that every Regional Transport Authority and State Transport Appellate Tribunal is obligated to hear Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, whenever considering any application for regular or temporary permit under Section 80 or 87 of the Act. b) Issue a writ in the form of a declaration that regular or temporary permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority and State Appellate Tribunal through the notified route or portion thereof, violating any scheme of nationalization, to the private stage carriage operators, without Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, being a party, is null and void. c) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P4 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction”. 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSRTC and the learned Special Government Pleader for the official respondents 1 to 4. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC submits that the application preferred by the 5[th] respondent for a temporary permit on the route Chungappara – Thiruvalla had WP(C).No.27312 OF 2013(L) 3 been initially rejected by Ext.P1 on the ground that a portion of the route from Eraviperoor to Thiruvalla for a distance of 8 kms overlaps the Thiruvananthapuram – Thiruvalla notified route. It is submitted that, later, the 5[th] respondent again submitted an application for a temporary permit under Section 87(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is stated that, by Ext.P2, the said application had been rejected. It is seen from Ext.P2 that the application for temporary permit was for 4 months in the vacant timings of another stage carriage. It is stated that 20 days temporary permit had been issued to the 5[th] respondent on the same route considering the festival season upto 08.10.2013. The application for 4 months temporary permit was considered and it was found that there was no urgent need for issue of permit under Section 87(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore the application was rejected. The learned Standing Counsel submits that Ext.P2 did not contain any mention of the objectionable overlapping on the notified route. The 5[th] respondent filed M.V Appeal No.393/2013 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam (STAT) and by Ext.P4 order, the STAT directed the Secretary, RTA to issue the temporary permit for two months in the vacancy of KL 6D-5390, if timings are available. WP(C).No.27312 OF 2013(L) 4 4. The learned Standing Counsel submits that it was on account of the fact that the objectionable overlapping was not pointed out in Ext.P2 order of rejection, that an order in the nature of Ext.P4 came to be passed by STAT. It is further submitted that non-recording of the fact of objectionable overlapping on notified routes is resulting in such orders and temporary permits being issued even in portions of notified routes. It is, therefore, contended that the Regional Transport Authorities and State Transport Appellate Tribunal are to be obligated to hear the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, whenever considering any application or appeal with regard to regular or temporary permits. The learned Standing Counsel relies on Ext.P6 judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court as also the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Karnataka State Transport Corporation vs. Sri.Pauli Govis and Another (AIR 1996 Kant 247) in support of the contentions. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Kerala State Road Transport v. Baby 2018 (2) KLT 974, it is contended that the Apex Court has held that the temporary permits cannot be issued to a private stage carriage operator on a notified route, which is being served by the State Transport Undertaking in excess of the permissible distance WP(C).No.27312 OF 2013(L) 5 provided under the scheme. It is, therefore, contended that it is only if the State Transport Undertaking is put on notice in respect of all applications for regular and temporary permits, that the actual factual aspects of the matter can be brought to the notice of the appropriate authorities and that such a course of action is imperative to protect the interest of the State Transport Undertaking. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that the request made by the petitioner for hearing of the State Transport Undertaking in all matters involving grant of permits is completely unworkable and unsustainable. It is stated that it is only in cases of grant of permits on notified routes that the KSRTC has any interest and in all other cases the proposal that the KSRTC is to be put on notice and heard is completely without any justification. It is further stated that the statutory provisions of the act or the rules do not provide for notice to the State Transport Undertaking and hearing being afforded to them in matters of grant of permits where notified routes are not involved. It is submitted that in the matter of meetings of the Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authorities, notice of the meetings with copies of the WP(C).No.27312 OF 2013(L) 6 agenda are given in advance to the State Transport Undertaking and any objection raised by the Undertaking is heard and properly taken note of while considering applications. 6. I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. In the instant case, the immediate complaint of the petitioner is with regard to Ext.P4 order issued by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in M.V. Appeal No.393/2013. The said order had been stayed by this Court at the time of admission of this writ petition. In view of the fact that the KSRTC has raised a specific case that the permit in question was directed to be issued though there was objectionable overlapping on a notified route. I am of the opinion that Ext.P4 order cannot be acted upon. Ext.P4 is, therefore, set aside. There will be direction to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to hear the appeal, if the same is still pending with notice to the KSRTC as well. 7. With regard to the further prayer for a declaration that the RTA and STAT are to put the KSRTC on notice in respect of all applications for regular or temporary permits, I am of the opinion that such a course of action is not called for in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The decisions of the Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh High Court relied on were rendered on a WP(C).No.27312 OF 2013(L) 7 factual situation where inordinately large number of permits had been granted overlapping notified routes without issuing any notice to the STU. No such situation is apparently in existence here. I am of the opinion that, no such declaration can be granted in view of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. In case the KSRTC is desirous of any change in the rules position, it is for the KSRTC to approach the Government with an appropriate representation seeking a proper amendment of the rules or issuance of orders for hearing the KSRTC before applications for permits on notified routes are considered. In case such a representation is submitted by the State Transport Undertaking, it will be duly considered by the Government in accordance with law. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. **==> picture [29 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** ## ANU SIVARAMAN ## JUDGE Bng/20.11.19 WP(C).No.27312 OF 2013(L) 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 6.6.2012. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 28.9.2013. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MVAA NO.393/2013 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE STAT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.10.2013 IN M.P.1031/2013 IN MVAA 393/2013 BEFORE THE STAT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.GO(P)NO.42/2009 TRANS DATED 14.7.2009. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN (APSRTC VS. SECRETARY TO GOVT.)REPORTED IN 1999(6) ALT 558**