Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 929 (KER)

Managing Director v. Regional Transport Authority

2009-09-30

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

body2009
Judgment :- Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The respondents herein were the respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The respondents 2 and 4 applied for regular permits on the route Pulpally-Changanachery as Super Fast/Fast Passenger/Limited Stop Ordinary Service. The Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam rejected those applications by Ext.P1 order dated 7.12.2007. The reason given for rejection of the application was that because of the route length, the permit applied for cannot be granted. The said respondents challenged the above order before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (S.T.A.T) by filing M.V.A.A.No.91/2008 and M.V.A.A.No.93/2008. Both the appeals were allowed by Exts.P2 and P3 judgments, by the said Tribunal, directing the R.TA. to grant regular permits on the above route to operate as Super Delux Service subject to counter signature by sister authorities. The applications were reconsidered by the R.T.A. and by Ext.P4 order dated 3.4.2008, the matter was adjourned without taking any final decision. Thereupon, the respondents 3 and 4 approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.23207/2008, which was disposed of by this Court by Ext.P5 judgment directing the R.T.A., Kottayam, to take a final decision in the matter by implementing Exts.P2 and P3. While so, the K.S.R.T.C. challenged Exts.P2 and P3 orders by filing W.P.(C) No.29431/2008. The learned Single Judge declined to consider the challenge against the orders impugned therein for the reason that this Court has already issued a direction to implement them as per Ext.P5. The learned Judge took the view that unless the appellant/writ petitioner avoids Ext.P5 in appropriate proceedings, it could not maintain the challenge against the judgments of the S.T.A.T. Thereupon, the appellant K.S.R.T.C. filed R.P.No.1249/2008 in W.P.(C)No.23207/2008. The same was disposed of by Ext.P7 order clarifying that Ext.P5 will not stand in the way of the K.S.R.T.C. challenging Exts.P2 and P3. Thereafter, the present Writ Petition was filed. The judgments of the Tribunal were attacked before the learned Single Judge mainly contending that the permits if granted will offend the Nationalisation Scheme on the route Kottayam- Chengannoor and Kottayam-Thiruvalla, notified as per Annexure-A notification dated 29.8.1961. But, the learned Single Judge, relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in K.S.R.T.C. v. The Regional Transport Authority and Others [1991(3) ILR (Kerala) 40], dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved K.S.R.T.C. has therefore preferred this appeal. 3. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. But, the learned Single Judge, relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in K.S.R.T.C. v. The Regional Transport Authority and Others [1991(3) ILR (Kerala) 40], dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved K.S.R.T.C. has therefore preferred this appeal. 3. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. It is not in dispute that if the permit offends Annexure-A scheme, it cannot be granted. According to the contesting respondents, though the route touched Chingavanam and Changanachery two intermediate points on the route Kottayam-Chengannur and Kottayam-Thiruvalla, the same will not offend the scheme as the line of travel is different from the nationalised route. On the other hand, the K.S.R.T.C. would submit that whether it is through the same route or through other route , if two intermediate points are touched, the same will offend Annexure-A scheme which is complete exclusion scheme with exception. 4. We considered the rival submissions and went through Annexure-A Scheme. Schedule I of Annexure-A scheme would show that the Scheme will cover the routes indicated in Annexure-A and all routes connecting or passing through any two or more intermediate points of such routes. The same would indicate that it is not necessary to pass though the very same route, but connecting two intermediate points through a different line of travel is sufficient . Therefore, we are not able to accept the contention of the grantees of the permits. The decision relied on by the learned Single Judge does not have any application to the point to be decided in this case. 5. In view of the above position, the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we reverse it. We also set aside Exts.P2 and P3. If the respondents 3 and 4 are willing to operate curtailing the offending portion mentioned above from Changanachery to Chningavanam, they may move the R.T.A. within one month from today, along with a copy of this judgment. In that event, the R.T.A., Kottayam, shall reconsider their applications and take a decision thereon, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of heard to the appellant herein. If the respondents 3 and 4 require any further modification in the application, including the class of service, they may move for the same before the 1st respondent R.T.A. In that event such motion shall be dealt with by the R.T.A. in accordance with law. If the respondents 3 and 4 require any further modification in the application, including the class of service, they may move for the same before the 1st respondent R.T.A. In that event such motion shall be dealt with by the R.T.A. in accordance with law. The Writ Appeal is allowed as above.