W.P.(C) No. 7460 of 2016 and connected cases

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: S. Manikumar
Shaji P. Chaly
Judgment Date: 2021-07-29
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions disposed of.
Final Disposition: Disposed of (writ petitions).

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

C.K. Manoj
Shibu
Prajeesh

Respondents

Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam
Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) represented by its Chairman & Managing Director, Transport Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram
District Transport Officer KSRTC, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. Deepak
• K. V. Gopinathan Nair
• I. Dinesh Menon

Counsels for Respondents

• Surin George Ipe
• P. C. Chacko

Case Synopsis & Summary

These writ petitions challenge the grant of temporary permits to private stage carriage operators on routes notified as served by the State Road Transport Undertakings (STS/STU) in Ernakulam. The High Court of Kerala, in three consolidated petitions (WP(C) 7460 of 2016, 7502 of 2016 and 7694 of 2016), heard by Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Judge Shaji P. Chaly on 29 July 2021, observes that the period for which temporary registration was sought has expired. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) submits that the issue is governed by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Akash Dev (2020 (3) KLT 218). The petitioners’ counsel did not dispute this contention, indicating acceptance of Akash Dev as controlling authority. The court also notes attention to the Supreme Court’s decision in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Baby P. P. and others (2018) 7 SCC 501, wherein the Court held that a private operator cannot operate on a notified route served by the STU beyond the permissible distance (5 kms or 5%, whichever is less). Based on these authorities, the court concludes the matter is squarely covered and disposes of the writ petitions in line with these precedents. The order underscores that the temporary permit framework must align with the statutory scheme and Supreme Court precedents, prioritising STU routes over private operators."

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, Section 104 (Proviso)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The text provides limited explicit detailing of the applicants’ submissions. It notes that the period of temporary registration sought is over and that the petitioners did not dispute the Division Bench’s reliance on the Akash Dev judgment, indicating deference to Akash Dev as controlling authority. The petitions appear to challenge the grant/continuation of temporary permits on routes notified as served by the STU, within the framework later endorsed by Baby P. P.; however, explicit arguments are not thoroughly delineated in the excerpt.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contended that the issue is squarely covered by Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Akash Dev (Division Bench) and the Supreme Court’s decision in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Baby P. P. and others. They argued that a private operator cannot obtain a temporary permit to operate on a notified route already served by the STU beyond the permissible distance (as laid down in Baby P. P.). The period of temporary registration having ended, the petitions should be disposed of in line with these precedents; the petitioners did not dispute the Akash Dev proposition."},

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Akash Dev	2020 (3) KLT 218	Positive	This Division Bench decision is cited as governing the issue and treated as controlling authority for the petitions.
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v Baby P. P. and others	(2018) 7 SCC 501	Positive	Supreme Court decision cited to establish the principle that temporary permits on routes served by STU are limited to permissible distances, guiding the disposition of the petitions.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

-1- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **THURSDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 7460 OF 2016** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **C.K.MANOJ AGED 36 YEARS** **S/O.KRISHNAN, CHEMMIKKATTU HOUSE, KUREEKKAD P.O., THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM-683 205.** **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.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE SR GP FOR R1 AND R2 SRI. P. C. CHACKO, SC FOR R3** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.07.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).7502/2016, 7694/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY THURSDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 7502 OF 2016** **PETITIONER/S:** **SHIBU AGED 47 YEARS S/O.VARKEY, KAIPARAMPATTU HOUSE, ANGAMALY PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADV SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN 682030 2 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682030 3 THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER KSRTC., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695001** **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE SR GP FOR R1 AND R2 SRI. P. C. CHACKO, SC FOR R3** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.07.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).7460/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -3- # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY THURSDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 7694 OF 2016** **PETITIONER/S:** **PRAJEESH S/O.PRAKASHAN, CHERIYACHANASSERY, AZHAKAM P.O., KARUKUTTY, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM - 683 576. BY ADV SRI.I.DINESH MENON** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM - 682 030.** - **2 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.** - **3 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION** **REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE SR GP FOR R1 AND R2 SRI. P. C. CHACKO, SC FOR R3** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.07.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).7460/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No. 7460 of 2016 and connected cases -4- ## **J U D G M E N T** ## S. Manikumar, C.J. By reference orders dated 26.02.2016 and 29.02.2016, a learned Single Judge has directed the Registry, to place these writ petitions before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, for an appropriate order. Thus after orders, these writ petitions are posted before us. 2. Period of temporary registration sought for is over. That apart, Mr. P. C. Chacko, learned counsel for the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, submitted that the issue is squarely covered by a Hon'ble Division Bench judgment of this Court in **Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Akash Dev [2020 (3) KLT 218]** . 3. The said contention has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. That apart, attention was also invited to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Kerala State Road Transport** W.P.(C) No. 7460 of 2016 and connected cases -5- ## **Corporation v. Baby P. P. and others [(2018) 7 SCC 501]** , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:- “39. In view of this discussion, the following answer emerges: 39.1 A temporary permit cannot be issued to a private stage carriage operator to traverse on the notified route which is being served by the STU, in excess of the permissible distance provided under the scheme. 39.2 To rephrase, under the facts of this case, it is not open for a private stage carriage operator (the respondent no. 1) to operate its services by overlapping on a notified route for more than 5 kms or 5% (whichever is less) of the route of the private 37 stage carriage operator (as specified under the Scheme) which is being served by the STU. 40. Accordingly, the judgment of STAT, the consequent order of the RTA granting temporary permit to the respondent no. 1, as well as the judgment of the High Court, are set aside. The appeals before us are hereby allowed. Consequently, O.P.(C) No. 1827 of 2017, as preferred by the appellant KSRTC, stands allowed. As regards the O.P.(C) No. 1784 of 2017 and O.P.(C) No. 581 of 2017, the same order shall govern their outcome.” ## 5. Reference now made does not require any answer, as the W.P.(C) No. 7460 of 2016 and connected cases -6- matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra. Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of. **Sd/-** **S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE** **Sd/-** **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** Eb ///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE W.P.(C) No. 7460 of 2016 and connected cases -7- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7460/2016** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.12.2015 IN WPC NO.39149 OF 2015 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7.1.2016 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 14.7.2009 PUBLISHED AS SRO NO.608 OF 2009 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT FILED U/S 104 (PROVISO) DATED 15.2.2016.** W.P.(C) No. 7460 of 2016 and connected cases -8- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7502/2016** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTED ON 30.01.201 EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P1** W.P.(C) No. 7460 of 2016 and connected cases -9- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7694/2016** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF REJECTION OF THE RENEWAL AS WELL AS TEMPORARY PERMIT (PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA ERNAKULAM HELD ON 22.12.2015 IN ITEM NO.63 AND ADDITIONAL ITEM NO.27). EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN.**