W.P.(C) Nos. 18874, 26649 & 27836 of 2013

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** # **FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 18874 of 2013 (H)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): --------------------------** ## **1. JOHN THOMAS** ## **MYALIL HOUSE, KALLARA SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM.** ## **2. BIJU THOMAS** **PULINTHOTTIYIL HOUSE, UZHAVOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY, ABRAHAM THOMAS MYALIL HOUSE, KALLARA SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** ## **----------------------------** **1. THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-695001.** **2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOTTAYAM-686602.** ## **3. THE SECRETARY** **REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM-686602.** ## **R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED SHAFI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-12-2013, ALONG WITH WPC. NOS. 26649/2013 AND 27836/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 18874 of 2013 (H)** ## **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT AND TIME SCHEDULE OF KL-5 R 3787.** **EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT AND TIME SCHEDULE OF KL-5 S 2880.** **EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT AND TIME SCHEDULE OF KL-35 C 84.** **EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT AND TIME SCHEDULE OF KL-5 T 6132.** **EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT AND TIME SCHEDULE OF KL-35 5334.** **EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT AND TIME SCHEDULE OF KL-35 A 1589.** **EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT AND TIME SCHEDULE OF KL-5 S 1710.** **EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT AND TIME SCHEDULE OF KL-7 BA 5107.** **EXHIBIT P9- TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT AND TIME SCHEDULE OF KL-5 AB 3784.** **EXHIBIT P10- TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE OF KL-5 S 1400.** **EXHIBIT P11- TRUE COPY OF THE STA CIRCULAR DATED 8-11-2011. EXHIBIT P12- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 16-7-2013.** **EXHIBIT P13- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25-7-2013.** **EXHIBIT P14- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 29-7-2013.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **dlk** ## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** ------------------------------------------ ## **W.P.(C)Nos.18874, 26649 & 27836 of 2013** ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 6[th ] day of December, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners in all the three writ petitions are various Associations of Stage Carriage Operators, operating stage carriages, within the State on valid permits issued by the Regional Transport Authorities, who have been conferred with such powers under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989(hereinafter referred to as “the Act” and “the Rules”). The challenge is against Ext.P4 circular and the petitioners confine their challenge to the non-prescription of running time to “limited stop ordinary services” operating within the State as per valid permits issued by the RTA and timings settled, in properly convened conferences. The short facts leading to the issuance of Ext.P4 circular is that as early as in 1997, the Government had issued Circular No.3/1997 produced as Ext.P1 in W.P.(c) No.26649 of 2013; wherein the “ordinary mofussil services” and “limited stop ordinary services” were treated as two separate categories and were W.P.(C)Nos.18874, 26649 & 27836 of 2013 : 2 : granted separate timings. However, in implementation of the same, difficulties were noticed and many of the operators approached this Court and by a common judgment dated 02.12.1998 in O.P.No.23828 of 1998, there was a direction to consider the difficulties projected by the “limited stop ordinary service” operators. Ext.P3 circular, hence, was issued by the State Transport Authority(STA) keeping in abeyance the running time stipulated in Ext.P1 from being implemented to “limited stop ordinary services”. While such orders were made, it is submitted that one another person approached this Court with a public interest litigation, in which, this Court directed implementation of Ext.P1 order. The various operators who were not parties to the said public interest litigation approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court with an SLP, in which the order of abeyance made by Ext.P3, was directed to be continued and ultimately was remanded for fresh consideration by a Division Bench of this Court. 2. The decision on remand is reported in _**Sebastian v. State of Kerala**_ **[2005(3) KLT 930],** wherein this Court W.P.(C)Nos.18874, 26649 & 27836 of 2013 : 3 : refused to intervene since the State Transport Authority and the State Government were carrying on the necessary exercise for a denovo consideration; and issued a direction to expedite such consideration. This has resulted in Ext.P4. However, when separate timings have been provided for Ordinary, Fast Passenger, Super Fast, Super Express, Super Delux and Hitech Buses, the petitioners are aggrieved by non-prescription of running time for operation of “limited stop ordinary services”. 3. The Government has also filed detailed counter affidavit, in which, it has been explained that Ext.P4 was the result of deliberations and discussions in which the Association of Stage Carriage Operators were also participated and Ext.P4 was introduced after taking the views of each and every association of operators. The counter affidavit asserts that such decision taken, with the intention of avoiding unhealthy competition as also increasing road accidents, ought not to be lightly interfered with. It is also submitted on behalf of the Government that “limited stop ordinary service” is not a W.P.(C)Nos.18874, 26649 & 27836 of 2013 : 4 : category recognized in the Act and Rules and hence there is absolutely no necessity for prescription of separate timings for the same. 4. “Limited stop ordinary service” is not a category recognized either in the Act or in the Rules framed by the State. But it cannot also be discounted that, such a service has been judicially recognized. This Court many a time has spoken on the need for such services, especially in long routes, with permission to stop at only specified stops within a fare stage, thus making the journey more comfortable and less tedious for the travelling public. It was in such circumstance that the authorities themselves, granted separate timings to “limited stop ordinary services”, which were not obliged to stop in every stops prescribed by the authority. “Limited stop ordinary services” operated between two places in a particular route would also have different stops prescribed, which would enable more of the travelling public to avail of such services, in long distance routes. The spirit behind the prescription of a separate timing and the introduction of a new category of W.P.(C)Nos.18874, 26649 & 27836 of 2013 : 5 : “limited stop ordinary service” has been accepted by the Transport Authorities in the State and the same has also received judicial recognition in various decisions of this Court. 5. The writ petition mentions quite a few decisions, but for brevity one decision reported in _**Balan v. S.T.A.T. Ernakulam(**_ **1992(1) KLT 733)** and one passage therein is extracted hereunder: _“fixation of stopping places has to be done to the interest of the travelling public. It may be true that travelling public would be benefitted if there are intermittent stopping places at short distances as passengers can alight from the vehicle and board it wherever they choose. But it would inflict great strain and tediousness to those passengers who have to cover long distances if the bus stops too frequently. Long distance passengers, in such buses, would be compelled to suffer loss of much time in journey. In long distance services “limited stop service” is adopted to lessen the strain, tediousness and waste of time of such passengers.”_ 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair also points out an amendment brought W.P.(C)Nos.18874, 26649 & 27836 of 2013 : 6 : to the Rules by the Kerala Motor Vehicles Amendment Rules, 2010, in which, the State Legislature also recognizes the separate category of “limited stop ordinary services”. Rule 269, providing for minimum seating capacity in stage carriages, was amended so as to provide for reservation of seats to senior citizens by substituting sub-rule (9) of the said rule. The substituted sub-rule dealt with reservation of seats to the senior citizens and reads so: “In all stage carriages other than ordinary and limited stop ordinary stage carriages...” Rule 192 of the Rules also made mention of limited stop city services. Hence, it is fairly established that the Government, the Courts, as also the authorities under the State Transport Department recognized the separate category or “limited stop ordinary services” and also prescribed separate timings for such operators. 7. The concern expressed by the State Transport Appellate Authority regarding the unhealthy competition and increasing road accidents also cannot be ignored by this Court. On behalf of the State Transport Authority, the Deputy W.P.(C)Nos.18874, 26649 & 27836 of 2013 : 7 : Transport Commissioner has filed an affidavit detailing the steps that have been taken prior to the introduction of Ext.P4 and the steps later taken for its implementation. The counter affidavit specifically speaks of an expert committee having been appointed to report on the timings in various routes, to be fixed on the basis of the condition of roads, the density of population and so on and so forth. The expert committee seems to have submitted its report on 02.08.2006 and the same was pending consideration of the State Transport Authority for so long, only because of the discussions the Transport Department, initiated with the operators and their association. It was after such deliberation and discussion that Ext.P4 was introduced. It is trite that an administrative action which overlaps with statutory function, initiated by an authority, after due deliberations and discussions and after receiving the report of an expert committee, cannot be lightly interfered with, by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But equally trite is the proposition that if the administrative authority by an inadvertent omission fails to W.P.(C)Nos.18874, 26649 & 27836 of 2013 : 8 : take into consideration one particular category, which would be one of the relevant considerations, in fixing the timing in various routes, then this Court would be justified in directing the authority to consider the said aspect also, before implementing the timings validly arrived at. 8. It is evident from the counter affidavit that this Court had in three writ petitions one numbered as W.P.(c) 23569 of 2013, directed the State Transport Authority to consider the non-inclusion of timings for “limited stop ordinary services” within a period of two months. The counter affidavit also indicates that the matter is placed for consideration in the meeting scheduled to be held on 30.12.2013. Necessarily, in considering the same, the observations made by this Court herein, should also be taken note of. It is made clear that this Court has not interfered with or considered the merits of the timings set by Ext.P4. The directions issued to the State Transport Authority is only to consider as to whether the category of “limited stop ordinary services” are also to be granted a separate running time, which according to this Court W.P.(C)Nos.18874, 26649 & 27836 of 2013 : 9 : would only be proper. In such circumstance, the petitioners also are to be heard in the meeting scheduled on 30.12.2013 and an expeditious decision will be taken on that count by the State Transport Authority. Till a decision is taken, the timings already granted to the “limited stop ordinary services” shall be allowed to be continued and after the decision is taken definitely the same would be subject to such decision. The writ petitions are disposed of, leaving the parties to suffer their costs. Sd/- ## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.** ln