T. J. Raju v. Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam; The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam; Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **SATURDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/15TH SRAVANA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 24089 of 2016 (I)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER :** **-----------------------** **T.J. RAJU, THOTTAMKARA, SOUTH PARAVOOR, THRIPUNITHURA.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK** **RESPONDENT(S):** **----------------------------** **1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM-682 030.** **2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM-682 030.** ## **3. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, 'TRANSPORT BHAVAN', THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **R1 & R2 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KSRTC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-07-2016, ALONG WITH WPC.NO. 24118 OF 2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 06-08-2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **WP(C).No. 24089 of 2016 (I)** ## **----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED VALID FROM 01-10-2014 TO 31-01-2015.** **EXHIBIT P1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED VALID FROM 01-02-2015 TO 31-05-2015.** **EXHIBIT P1(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED VALID FROM 05-06-2015 TO 24-06-2015.** **EXHIBIT P1(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED VALID FROM 25-06-2015 TO 14-07-2015. EXHIBIT P1(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED VALID FROM 15-07-2015 TO 14-11-2015. EXHIBIT P1(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED VALID FROM 15-11-2015 TO 04-12-2015. EXHIBIT P1(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED VALID FROM 05-12-2015 TO 24-12-2015. EXHIBIT P1(G) A TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED VALID FROM 03-02-2016 TO 22-02-2016. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22-12-2015.** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 05-04-2016.** **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT VALID FROM 03-06-2016 TO 02-10-2016. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM DATED 08-07-2016.** **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT DATED 04-07-2016 WITH COVERING LETTER. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL -----------------------------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **sts** ## **SHAJI P. CHALY, J.** ---------------------------- W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 6[th] day of August, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** The subject matter of the captioned writ petitions are substantially connected and therefore I propose to dispose of them by a common judgment. Wherever specific facts are required, same will be mentioned separately. The facts discernible from W.P.(C) No.24089/2016, and the documents produced thereunder are recited, and relied on respectively, to dispose of these writ petitions. 2. Petitioner is a stage carriage operator from 1.10.2014 to 22.2.2016, for more than 14 months. Petitioner was permitted to conduct service on the route Poothatta-Aluva on the strength of successive temporary permits issued under Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), evident from W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 2 Exts.P1 and P1(a) to P1(g) series. The above permits were issued to operate 'city service' in the vacant timings of a defaulted stage carriage bearing No.KL 40/A 6031. However, when petitioner applied for re-issue of temporary permit to operate the service in continuation of Ext.P1(g) permit valid till 22.2.2016, said application was rejected by the respondent by Ext.P2 order dated 22.12.2015. 3. In Ext.P2 the first respondent admits that, the regular permit issued to the route bus was surrendered and cancelled during the year 2010, that consequent to the withdrawal of the route bus, other stage carriages, including that of the petitioner were being issued with temporary permits under Section 87 to do substitute service, and that the vacant timings of the route bus are still in existence and therefore, there exists a temporary need for the grant of permit on the proposed route. However, first respondent has declined temporary permit W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 3 on the ground, proposed route objectionably overlaps Trivandrum-Kannur notified route covered by the approved scheme of nationalization dated 14.07.2009 and that the third respondent herein vehemently objected grant of temporary permit allegedly due to objectionable overlapping. According to the petitioners, the objection raised by the third respondent cannot be sustained since, from Ext.P2, it is clear, third respondent is not conducting service on the proposed route with the same set of timings, nor has the third respondent filed any application for grant of permit. However, as per the interim order dated 22.2.2016 in W.P.(C)No.5827/2016 this Court directed the first respondent to re-consider the application for temporary permit put in by the petitioner as one filed under the proviso to Section 104 of the Act. 4. Accordingly, the matter was re-considered by W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 4 the first respondent in the meeting held on 5.4.2016. Since the application for temporary permit was ordered to be considered as one file under the proviso to Section 104 of the Act, the third respondent with the intention of denying permit to the petitioner one way or the other, made a false claim before the first respondent that they have already applied for and obtained a temporary permit to operate the route in question, and in the same vacancy sought for by the petitioner. Therefore, the first respondent rejected the application relying solely on the claim put forward by the third respondent, evident from Ext.P3. It is urged by the petitioner that, as on the date of Ext.P3 decision dated 5.4.2016 no order has been issued to the third respondent to operate on the route in question and it was much later, that is on 3.6.2016 that the third respondent applied for and obtained one temporary permit for a period of four months to operate on the route in question, evident from Ext.P4. But, W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 5 according to the petitioner, third respondent has not operated the service on the strength of Ext.P4 permit even for a day. Ext.P4 permit was got issued only with the intention of frustrating petitioner's claim. The nonoperation of the service by the third respondent has been certified by Ext.P5 report of the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Ernakulam dated 8.7.2016. In that view of the matter petitioner has put in yet another application for temporary permit to operate on the route in question, evident from Ext.P6. It is contended by the petitioner that, in the light of the admitted non-operation of the service by the KSRTC, it is incumbent on the second respondent to issue temporary permit to the petitioner on Ext.P6 application in accordance with the principles of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in **Mohankumar R. v. Government of Kerala and Another** [2016(3) KHC 244] : [2016(2) KLT 963], wherein this Court taking into account the judgment of W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 6 the Apex Court in **Punjab Roadways v. Punja Sahib Bus & Transport Co.** [(2010) 5 SCC 235] that, where a State Transport Undertaking in spite of grant of permit does not operate the service or surrenders the permit granted or is not utilising the permit, it should be deemed that no application for permit has been made by the State Transport Undertaking and it is open to the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permit, if there a temporary need, held that “even if a State Transport Undertaking has been granted permit and if it is not utilising that permit, it would be open to the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permit if there is a temporary need. Practically stated, the application by a State Transport Undertaking for permit in respect of a scheme is necessarily a clear indicator as to the temporary need as well. Therefore, when the State Transport Undertaking W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 7 has been granted a permit and is not utilising the permit, it would be open to the Regional Transport Authority to act upon on any application for grant of temporary permit to a private operator. Resultantly, it is also to be taken that, even where the STC has applied for and obtained a temporary permit to operate and is not utilising the permit by operating services in accordance with the grant, the private operators would be eligible to apply for temporary permit. Obviously, the existence of temporary need would stand established under such cases with reference to the fact that STC had applied for and obtained permits.” Therefore, it is submitted, petitioner is entitled to secure permit, since in spite of the grant of permit, third respondent is not operating the route. W.P.(C)No.24118/2016 Petitioner is a stage carriage operator from 11.4.2014 to 07.01.2016, for more than 20 months, petitioner was permitted to conduct service on the route Eloor Ferry- W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 8 Willington Island on the strength of successive temporary permits issued under Section 87 of the Act. The above orders were issued to operate 'city service' in the vacant timings of defaulted stage carriage bearing No. KL 07/B 4887. However, when petitioner applied for re-issue of temporary permit to operate the service in continuation of the temporary permit valid till 7.1.2016, the said application was rejected by the second respondent as per Ext.P1 order dated 5.2.2016. The application was considered by the first respondent like in the other case under the proviso to Section 104 of the Act on the ground that, the proposed route objectionably overlaps Trivandrum-Kannur scheme. W.P.(C)No. 24590/2016 Petitioner is a stage carriage operator on the route Aluva-Thevara Junction, which was one of the city routes identified by the first respondent under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 for the grant of stage W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 9 carriage permits to operate 'city services'. Thereafter, regular permit was issued in the year 1999 to one Lilly Jose, to conduct the stage carriage service on the above route. Later, the said permit was transferred to the petitioner and service was operated with the stage carriage bearing registration No. KL 07/AG 1472. However, petitioner surrendered Ext.P1 permit and the same was cancelled in the year 2005. Immediately thereafter, petitioner procured another stage carriage bearing No. KL 07/AH 3484 and obtained temporary permit under Section 87 of the Act to conduct the service in the vacancy of Ext.P1 regular permit. The last of such temporary permit issued to the petitioner was valid till 9.3.2016. However, when the petitioner applied for reissue of temporary permit to operate the service in continuation of Ext.P1(a) permit the said application was rejected by the first respondent as per order dated 22.12.2015. The application was re-considered by the W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 10 first respondent as one filed under proviso to Section 104 of the Act in compliance of the directions issued by this Court. However, the application was rejected based on the objection raised by the third respondent, they are 'operating sufficient stage carriages on the major portion of the proposed route.' ## W.P.(C)No. 25126/2016 Petitioner is operating on the route Konam-Ponekkara. The regular permit valid for a period of five years has been issued to conduct service on the above route as 'city service'. The said permit was one among 850 such permits set apart for private operators as per the notifications issued by the Government, under Section 71 (3)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. According to the petitioner, this was the only stage carriage granted with a permit on the route. However, even before the expiry of the regular permit, the said stage carriage defaulted W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 11 operation. In the vacancy occasioned by the withdrawal of the regular service, several other stage carriages including that of the petitioner were issued with temporary permits from time to time to conduct substitute service in the vacant timings of the defaulted service. The last of such temporary permit issued to the petitioner herein was valid for a period of of four months from 03.07.2015 to 02.11.2015. However, when the petitioner applied for re-issue of temporary permit to operate the service in continuation of Ext.P1 permit, the second respondent herein rejected the said application on the ground, route proposed objectionably overlaps the Trivandrum-Kannur notified route at a distance of 12.5 kilometres. The said order was impugned before this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.7547/2016. By an interim order dated 22.2.2016 this Court directed the first respondent to re-consider the application for temporary permit put in by the petitioner as one filed under the W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 12 proviso to Section 104 of the Act. 5. Resultantly, the application was considered by the first respondent in the meeting held on 5.4.2016. Now, the petitioner is served with an order of the first respondent stating that, the third respondent is operating sufficient stage carriages in between Angamaly & Perumbavoor. The route proposed by the petitioner is Konam-Ponekkara, which even remotely have any connection with Angamaly & Perumbavoor and therefore it is contended that, in the light of the admitted nonoperation of the service by the KSRTC it is incumbent on the second respondent to consider the matter and issue temporary permit to the petitioner, in terms of the law laid down by this Court in **Mohankumar R. v. Government of Kerala and another** [2016(2) KLT 963] 6. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(C)No.24089/2016 and requested to apply the contentions raised in the said counter affidavit W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 13 to other writ petitions also. Apart from denying the demands and claims raised by the petitioner, it is also contended that, the writ petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The dictum laid down by this Court in **Mohankumar.R** (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The scheme involved in that case is G.O.(P)No.73/2013 dated 16.7.2013 and the said scheme is an area scheme by which Fast Passenger and other Super class service are exclusively given to the KSRTC and the entire State of Kerala is coming under the scheme. The scheme involved in the present case is a route scheme issued by the Government under Section 100(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act dated 14.7.2009. The main 31 routes in the State has been nationalised. The Division Bench of this Court in **Managing Director, KSRTC v. Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam and others** [2013(3) KHC 820) held that, permit cannot be granted under W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 14 proviso to Section 104 of the Act, if the entire portion of the route is not a notified route. 7. It is also submitted that, due to some technical reasons respondent could not start service. That part, the third respondent is conducting large number of service through Ernakulam-Aluva and Ernakulam-Poothotta routes and that between Ernakulam-Aluva with minimum gap of 5 minutes KSRTC is conducting various class of services. Similarly on the route Ernakulam-Vaikom also KSRTC is conducting large number of services. Originally from Aluva-Thripunithura the route was through M.G Road and Menaka. Now there are alternative short distance routes through Vyttila-Edappally and Edappally Bye Pass and Thripunithura-Kakkanad-Kalamassery, Sea Port - Airport route. It is also stated that, the third respondent is conducting chain services from Aluva to Thripunithura through Sea Port Airport. The same is a short distance route, passengers are mainly depending on W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 15 that route. 8. It is also contended that, the third respondent has a subsidiary Corporation, Kerala Urban Transport Corporation (KURTC) and there is a strategic plan to introduce Low Carbon City Buses in Greater Cochin. It is to ensure less mile connectivity for the Kochi Metro Rail Project and also to rejuvenate mass transportation facility in the project area and accordingly the project intends to introduce 650 new buses in Greater Cochin Area, which includes electric buses operated by battery and CNG. It is also stated that, presently, majority of the city services in Kochi are concentrated in NH 47 between Aluva and Ernakulam and Ernakulam - Thriupunithura. There will be a direct impact of Metro Rail Service on the existing city bus routes operated by KSRTC. Therefore, the Route nationalisation of the existing bus service is proposed and extension or curtailment of existing bus route and for the introduction of feeder bus service, 43 W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 16 feeder routes have been identified within the catchment area of proposed Metro Rail Station. It is also submitted that, KSRTC has already initiated discussion with Indian Oil Corporation etc., etc, for setting up of CNG dispensing stations within the vicinity of KSRTC/KURTC depot in the Grater Cochin area. 9. It is also contended that,in accordance with the law laid by the Apex Court in **Adarsh Travel Bus Service and and another v. State of UP and another** [1985(4) SCC 557] “once a scheme is published under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act in relation to any area or route or portion thereof, no person other than State Transport Undertaking may operate on the notified route except as provided in the scheme itself. Therefore, no private operator can operate on part or portion of a notified route. The contention that great inconvenience may cause to the travelling public if a passenger is allowed to travel from A to B on stage carriage, to ply W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 17 which on the route A to B , a person 'X' has a permit, merely because a portion of the route from C to D somewhere between the point A & B is a portion of notified route.” Therefore, on the contention of inconvenience of passengers permit cannot be granted to the private operators in violation of the scheme.” 10. That apart the judgment of the Apex Court in **B.A.Linga Reddy and others v. Karnataka State Transport Authority and others** [2015(4) SCC 515 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in **Managing Director, KSRTC** (supra) are also pressed into service. So also the judgment of the Apex Court in **U.P. State Transport Corporation v. Anwar Ahammed** [1997(3) SCC 191] is cited to canvass the proposition that, once a scheme has been approved and notified, right to ply stage carriage by private operators on the notified area, route or portion thereof is totally frozen and therefore, they have no right to claim any W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 18 grant of temporary stage carriage or contract carriage permit thereunder. That apart it was also held that, proviso to Section 104 of the Act gives only a limited breath of life namely until the Corporation puts the vehicle on the notified routes as per the scheme. Apart from the same, other aspects are also put forth by the third respondent to canvass that, reliefs sought for by the petitioners cannot be sustained under law, as well the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in various judgments. 11. Learned counsel also contended that, the provisions of Chapter VI have overriding effect to the provisions of Chapter V. Therefore, private operators are not entitled to get permit in violation of the scheme of nationalization. 12. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned senior Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent Corporation. W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 19 13. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for petitioners is that, merely because a route is notified or an area is notified, same will not disable the private stage carriage operator to seek temporary permit on the route, if there is a temporary need. It is also contended that, in the defaulted vacancy, if the third respondent not utilising the notified route or the area, private stage carriage operators are entitled as of right to seek temporary permits to operate their vehicles. That apart it is also contended that, even if the third respondent has secured a permit and is not operating the route, then also a private stage carriage operate is entitled to secure a temporary permit and operate on the route. Therefore according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the decision of the first respondent declining the temporary permit to the petitioners on the routes in question merely by stating that, the permit sought for has objectionable overlapping in the notified route, W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 20 first respondent cannot reject the temporary permit application. 14. Learned counsel has also invited by attention to a judgment of this Court in **Mohankumar.R** (supra) and specifically to paragraph 15, wherein this Court relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in **Punjab Roadways** (supra) has held that “the net effect of these situation is that if the STC does not apply for grant of permit through any route which is a notified route or covered by a scheme, temporary permits can be granted to the private operators based on temporary need and if there are routes for which permits have been grated to the STC in relation to notified route or notified area and if the STC is not utilising the permit by operating the services, it will be open to the RTA to act on any application for grant of temporary permit to the private operators over such routes.” 15. So also it is the contention of the counsel that, W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 21 even though a permit was secured by the third respondent, the same was not being operated and the permit was secured with the sole intention to prohibit the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.24089/2016 from operating the vehicle. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent it is stated that, third respondent started operation of the vehicle. 16. Per contra, learned counsel for the third respondent contended that, if and when a route is notified, the private stage carriage operators have no legal right to claim that they are entitled to seek permits as of right otherwise than as provided under the notifications. According to the counsel, third respondent is operating a vehicle on the route pointed out in W.P.(C) No.24089/2016 after securing a permit. Therefore, the petitioner therein is not entitled to seek temporary permit on the above route in view of the objectionable overlapping of notification, 2009. It is also contended by W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 22 the learned counsel that, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in **Muhankumar.R** (supra) does not apply to the fact situations of this case. There the question considered by Division Bench of this Court was with respect to the constitutionality of Section 99 of the Act, 1988 and other related matters and therefore, findings rendered thereunder cannot be imported to sustain the case put forth by the petitioners in these writ petitions. That part, learned counsel has invited my attention to Division Bench judgment of this Court in **Managing Director, KSRTC, TVM v. Secretary, RTA** [2013(3) KHC 820(DB) and 2015(3) KLJ 32 and a judgment of this Court in **Akash Dev v. State of Kerala and others and Sukumar K K v. Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam and others** [2013(4) KHC 411, and judgments of the Apex Court in **Adarsh Travel Bus Service and and another v. State of UP and another** [1985(4) SCC 557] and **Gajraj Singh v. STAT and** W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 23 **others** [1997(1) SCC 650] to canvass the proposition that once a route is notified then the right to ply stage carriages by private operators on the notified route or area or portion thereof is totally frozen and the private operators have no right to claim any grant of stage carriage, temporary or contract carriage permits on the said route or portions thereof, except to the extent saved by the scheme with restrictions imposed thereunder. So also, petitioners have no manner of right to seek permit to operate in a city route that overlaps a notified scheme, since such routes are akin to any other routes and further that the provisions of Chapter VI applies even in respect to city routes and the prohibition under Section 104 of the Act granting permits except in accordance with the scheme applies even in respect of city route as mentioned under Section 71(3)(a). Relying on **Gajraj Singh** (supra) learned counsel contended that, grant of permit under the 1988 Act is mere privilege and not a vested or W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 24 accrued right and that the permit will lapse after expiry of the period for which it was initially granted. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the third respondent that the rejection of temporary permit applications submitted by the petitioners are in accordance with law. 17. Taking into account the rival submissions made across the Bar and perusal of pleadings and documents on record the question to be considered is whether the petitioners are entitled to secure any relief with respect to the rejection of temporary permits in view of the applications submitted in respect of notified route/area. It is true that, the Apex Court as well as this Court had occasion to consider, the right of private stage carriage operators to seek temporary permit in a notified route/area and held that, when the State Transport Undertaking have sought for permits for operating in the notified route, the private stage carriage operators as of W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 25 right cannot claim that they are entitled to secure temporary permits and operate on the said routes. In my considered opinion, on a reading of facts and circumstances of the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court it is clear that, the judgments were rendered bearing in mind the nature of the notifications issued by the Government with respect to facts and circumstances of each case. However,the question with respect to non-operation of the routes by the State Transport Undertaking was considered by the Apex Court in the **Punjab Roadways** case cited (supra), which was followed by the Division Bench of this Court in **Mohankumar.R** (supra). Therefore, admittedly, even according to the third respondent, as held by the Apex Court in the said judgment if and when the State Transport Undertaking is not operating on a notified route/area, private operators can be permitted to operate by securing temporary permits. It was following the said W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 26 judgment only this Court has laid down in **Mohankumar.R** (supra) that, merely because a permit was secured by the State Transport Undertaking without operating on the route, it will not dissuade the private stage carriage operator from seeking a temporary permit. Admittedly, in W.P.(C)No.24089/2016 when the writ petition was filed, the third respondent Corporation was not operating on the route even though, a permit was secured. It is stated in the counter affidavit that, the third respondent has started operating on the vacancy route sought for by the petitioner. Merely because the route is notified that by itself is not an interdiction for a private operator to apply for a temporary permit as held by the Apex Court in **Punjab Roadways** (supra) which was followed by the Division Bench in **Mohankumar.R** (supra).The permits were declined to the petitioners merely on the ground that the permit sought for, overlaps the objectionable route or area, therefore, W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 27 cannot be sustained under law. True, the third respondent has a case that, against rejection of temporary permit, petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal to the Tribunal. However, as discussed above, when a law is laid down by a Superior Court, the administrative as well as the quasi judicial authorities are bound to follow the same. Since the same was not followed, the action of the first respondent is illegal, arbitrary and irrational, enabling the petitioners to approach this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. That part I find from the judgment of the Apex Court in **Adarsh Travel Bus Service and Another,** that the paramount consideration while issuing a notification with respect to a route or area, good and sufficient care must be taken to see that traveling public are not put into any manner of prejudice or inconvenience. So also transportation of passengers in bulk is undertaken by the W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 28 State as well as Private stage carriage operators to ensure that the public is not inconvenienced in any manner to arrive at various destinations. More over, mass transport system, to a large extent avoids overcrowding of public roads with smaller vehicles thereby protecting road conditions, reducing accidents and traffic congestion and saving fuel. Apart from these, environment is also protected to a large extent in very many ways. Therefore, the approach of the authorities under law should be to ensure in a route or area notified, State Transport Corporation is operating their vehicles sufficient enough to cater the needs of the public at large and to the fullest strength. When a route or area notified, and the Corporation is not operating vehicles, public will be put to innumerable difficulties, especially in a country like India where large number of people are depending on the public transport system to travel to various destinations, short and long being economical and safe. True, power is W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 29 secured by the State Transport Corporation on the basis of Chapter VI to have exclusive operation of vehicle except as provided under the scheme. But, that by itself cannot be termed as an armour or weapon for the Corporation to prevent private operators from seeking permits to operate on the routes or area without operating their vehicles to satisfy the requirement and need of the public to the fullest extent. 19. Taking into account the aforesaid fact situations and the legal circumstances reckoned above, I am of the considered opinion that the first respondent is duty bound to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners taking into account the judgment rendered by this in **Mohankumar R. v. Government of Kerala and another** [2016(2) KLT 963] [2016(3) KHC 244] following the judgment of the Apex Court in **Punjab Roadways v. Punja Sahib Bus & Transport Co.** [(2010) 5 SCC 235]. W.P.(C). Nos.24089, 24118, 24590 & 25126 of 2016 30 20. Therefore, these writ petitions are allowed setting aside the respective orders passed in these writ petitions against the petitioners declining the temporary permits and direct the first respondent to re-consider the respective applications submitted by the petitioners seeking temporary permits in terms of the observations and findings rendered above. Writ petitions are allowed accordingly. Sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE** dlk/30/7/