JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P7 order passed by the 1st respondent, Regional Transport Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 04.08.2017, by which fresh permit sought for by the petitioner in the vacancy of permit bearing No.C13/18/T/1995 on the route Thiruvallam - Nettayam is rejected, and consequentially the said route is granted to the KSRTC. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner is a member of scheduled caste and he is a member and activist of Trivandrum District Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Motor Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. Among 100 permits allowed in Thiruvananthapuram City for private operators as per Sec.71(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, 'the Act, 1988'], certain permits are reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as per Sec.71(3)(b) and (c) of the Act. Accordingly, the permit on the route Thiruvallam - Nettayam was granted in favour of the above specified Co-operative Society. The permit so issued on 30.06.1995 was renewed from time to time, and was valid up to 29.06.2015. 3. The aforesaid service operated by the society defaulted and garaged the vehicle due to mechanical defects. When the route became vacant, petitioner who is a member of the society along with 5 other members, also belonging to the Scheduled Caste community purchased a stage carriage with Registration No.KL-01/Z 678, and applied for substitute temporary permit in the above vacancy, and in the meanwhile, temporary permit was granted and was conducting service on the above said route till 16.03.2017, evident from Ext.P4. While so, the renewal application submitted by the society has been considered on 16.01.2016 and adjourned for detailed enquiry with regard to the functioning of the society. The said application was finally considered by the 1st respondent on 24.01.2017 and the same was rejected, holding that the society is incapable of carrying on the stage carriage service and requested the District Planning Officer, Collectorate to constitute a Committee and take over the stage carriage service, however, the said scheming did not work out, evident from Ext.P5 proceedings of the 1st respondent. 4. According to the petitioner, regular permit in question is one reserved for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes quota and the benefit extended by the statute with the rights conferred by the Constitution cannot be denied to them in any manner. 4. According to the petitioner, regular permit in question is one reserved for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes quota and the benefit extended by the statute with the rights conferred by the Constitution cannot be denied to them in any manner. Thereupon, the petitioner who is a member of the Scheduled Caste society, and who is having a ready vehicle, claiming with sufficient operational skill and experience on the very same route for the past more than one year, submitted application for grant of regular permit in the above vacancy, by way of regularization. However, the 1st respondent by Ext.P7 rejected the application of the petitioner, and consequently granted permit to the 3rd respondent. 5. It is submitted by the petitioner that, Ext.P7 order passed by the 1st respondent amounts to infringement of Article 46 of the Constitution of India. Section 71(3) of the Act, 1988, postulates that once the number of permits are limited by way of notification under Sec.71(3) of the Act, 1988, among such permits, certain percentage, as in the case of appointments made by direct recruitment to public service have to be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The application of the 3rd respondent is not maintainable since the permit in question is reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. A benefit extended or approved to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community by the Constitution cannot be denied by treating the grant of permit as a new permit in any manner. Other legal contentions are also raised based on the provisions of the Constitution of India. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner is entitled to get regularization of the permit in the specified defaulted vacancy. 6. Second respondent has filed a detailed statement, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. The factual circumstances up to the grant of temporary permit to the petitioner are not under dispute. Among other contentions, it is stated that, the RTA while considering application for renewal of permit, observed that the society is not capable of running stage carriage service, since it is not functioning, and it was in that background, permit was declined as per order dated 24.01.2017 to the afore-specified society. Thereupon, a vacancy arose and two applications were received for fresh permit on this route. Thereupon, a vacancy arose and two applications were received for fresh permit on this route. In order to protect the regular permit under SC/ST quota and to get the benefit of stage carriage service to the members of SC/ST families, RTA which met on 04.08.2016 has decided to transfer the permit in the name of the District Planning Officer, Collectorate, Thiruvananthapuram, and he was directed to constitute a committee and to initiate necessary steps to transfer the permit enjoyed by the society, on the route Thiruvallam - Nettayam in his name and to operate the same. 7. When the matter was taken up for consideration in the meeting held on 24.01.2017, the District Planning Officer, Thiruvananthapuram has requested to exempt him from the operation of the bus service, since the applicant society is not functioning. It was thereupon only RTA decided not to renew the permit granted to the society. As such, KSRTC is operating the route in question, on the strength of temporary permit with stage carriage No.KL-15-8923. 8. The Secretary, RTA has reported that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and applied for the permit since the permit is included in the quota reserved for SC/ST category. The business or technical qualification of the applicant, under Rule 145(3) is reported to the effect that, applicant has more than one year experience in the operation of stage carriage service. He is operating the stage carriage service on the strength of temporary permits with his vehicle No.KL-01-Z 678. It is further reported by the Secretary that separate mark sheet has been prepared, because one of the applicant is KSRTC. The permits of KSRTC are issued according to the provisions of Chapter VI, which has overriding effect on Chapter V, under which, permits to private sector are issued. As per Sec.98 of Chapter VI, the provisions of this Chapter and the rules and orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter V or in any other law for the time being in force, or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. 9. It is further submitted that, Sec.104 of the Act, 1988 restricts the authorities from granting any permits in respect of notified area or route, wherein scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of Sec.100 and grant of permits can be in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. 9. It is further submitted that, Sec.104 of the Act, 1988 restricts the authorities from granting any permits in respect of notified area or route, wherein scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of Sec.100 and grant of permits can be in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. Therefore, issuance of permit to a private operator violates Clause 5 (c) and Clause 19 of the notification dated 14.07.2009. Hence, even though this permit is reserved for SC/ST category, the existence of the said notification forbids from granting fresh permit to a private operator. 10. It is also submitted that, the notification G.O.(P) No.42/2009/Tran. dated 14.07.2009 is modified vide notification G.O.(P) No.8/2017/Tran. dated 23.03.2017. As per Clause 5(c) of the said modified notification, permissible overlapping to private stage carriage is either 5 kms. or 5% of the length of the route, whichever is less on the notified route. The total route length of Thiruvallam - Nettayam is reported to be, 18 kms. and hence the permissible overlapping as per clause 5(c) of the above approved scheme is 900 metres only. Since the proposed route is objectionably overlapping 2.5 kms. from Over bridge to Palayam, in Sl.No.1 Trivandrum - Varkala route, issuance of permit to private sector will be violation of the scheme. As per clause 19 of the said notification, the right to operate any new service and to increase the trips in the 31 routes in the Annexure or its portions is reserved exclusively for State Transport Undertaking. Therefore, the issuance of fresh permit to an applicant other than KSRTC will be violation of the said scheme. 11. It was thereupon only the application submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the RTA, and hence no circumstances are made out by the petitioner justifying interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that, if the petitioner was aggrieved by Ext.P7 order, a statutory remedy is available to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 12. The 3rd respondent has also filed a counter affidavit almost in similar lines as that of the 2nd respondent. It is also submitted that, if the petitioner was aggrieved by Ext.P7 order, a statutory remedy is available to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 12. The 3rd respondent has also filed a counter affidavit almost in similar lines as that of the 2nd respondent. The basic contentions advanced are on the basis of Sections 98 and 104 of Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein, overriding effect is provided against all other provisions of Chapter V and the rules and orders thereunder, and also highlighting restriction on grant of permits in respect of a notified area or notified route. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 14. The sole question to be considered is, whether any manner of interference is warranted to Ext.P7 order, exercising the power of judicial review conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is an admitted fact that, till the year 1994, the prerogative to operate city services in Thiruvananthapuram city was exclusively with the KSRTC, on the basis of notifications issued by the Government under Chapter VI of the Act, 1988. However, certain compelling reasons persuaded the Government to introduce operation of the private stage carriages in Thiruvananthapuram city. This has been introduced by way of issuing notification under Sec.71(3) of the Act, 1988, by limiting the total number of city permits to 510, out of which, 100 permits are reserved for private operators. Accordingly, all the existing notifications relating to the schemes of nationalization, which stood against the grant of permit to private operators, have been modified by incorporating permission to operate 100 permits by the private operators. The number so prescribed for the KSRTC have been subsequently enhanced to 760, retaining the 100 permits set apart for private operators, evident from Ext.P2 notification. 15. Section 71(3) of the Act, 1988 postulates that once the number of permits are limited by way of notification under the provision, among such permits, certain percentage have to be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It was thereupon that the 1st respondent set apart certain permits for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 15. Section 71(3) of the Act, 1988 postulates that once the number of permits are limited by way of notification under the provision, among such permits, certain percentage have to be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It was thereupon that the 1st respondent set apart certain permits for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It was among the quota reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, a regular permit has been issued to the Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram District Scheduled Caste-Scheduled Tribe Motor Transport Co-operative Society for stage carriage bearing No.KL-05/K 9511, on 30.06.1995. The said permit was being renewed from time to time and was valid up to 29.06.2015. 16. It is also an admitted fact that the society defaulted service due to mechanical defects of the vehicle. It is an undisputed fact that substitute temporary permit was granted to the petitioner who is a member and worker of the society, along with other 5 workers in respect of vehicle No.KL-01/Z 678, evident from Ext.P3, and the temporary permit was being renewed, and was valid till 16.03.2017. It was during the validity of the temporary permit, the renewal application of the society was considered, and found that the society is not in a viable condition, and therefore, the District Planning Officer, Collectorate, Thiruvananthapuram was directed to constitute a committee and then take over the operation of the vehicle. However, the same did not fructify, since the Planning Officer expressed his disinclination, as the society is in an unworkable condition. It was thereupon, application was submitted by the petitioner, who is a member of the Scheduled Caste community. 17. According to the petitioner, the permit was granted to the society in accordance with the community benefit available to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, even though by virtue of clause 5(c) and clause 19 of G.O.(P) No.42/2009/Tran. dated 14.07.2009, restrictions are created to operate private stage carriages, a member of the Scheduled Caste is entitled to operate the defaulted vacancy by virtue of Sec.70(3)(a) and (b) of Act, 1988. It is also an admitted fact, 100 permits are reserved for private operators within the city of Thiruvananthapuram. However, as per clause 19 of the Government Order dated 14.07.2009, the right to operate any new service and to increase the trips in the 31 routes in the Annexure or its portions will be reserved exclusively for State Transport Undertaking. 18. It is also an admitted fact, 100 permits are reserved for private operators within the city of Thiruvananthapuram. However, as per clause 19 of the Government Order dated 14.07.2009, the right to operate any new service and to increase the trips in the 31 routes in the Annexure or its portions will be reserved exclusively for State Transport Undertaking. 18. Without going into much details, I am of the considered opinion that, 100 permits are reserved for private operators within the Thiruvananthapuram city. As per Sec.71 (3)(b) of Act, 1988, where the number of stage carriages are fixed under clause (a), the State Government shall reserve in the State certain percentage of stage carriage permits for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the same ratio as in the case of appointments made by direct recruitment to public services in the State. Therefore, when the State Government has decided to grant 100 city permits to private stage carriage operators, the stipulation contained under clause (b) of Sec.71(3) is an imperative condition on the Government to grant required permits to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the ratio as in the case of appointments made by direct recruitment to public services in the State. However, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has a contention that consequent to introduction of Ext.R3(a) notification and by virtue of the provisions contained thereunder, whenever there is a vacancy, the same has to be regulated as per the provisions of the said notification. It is also contended that, the route in question operated by the society and subsequently by the petitioner under temporary permit has a route length of 18 kms. and the permissible overlapping as per clause 5(c) of Ext.R3(a) is 900 metres, whereas, the route objectionably overlaps 2.5 kms. from Over bridge to Palayam, and therefore, the issuance of permit to private sector will be in violation of the said scheme. 19. It is pertinent to note that the phraseology employed in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Sec.71 is “shall”. Therefore, the State Government had no other option than to grant sufficient number of stage carriage permits to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in accordance with law. Even though Ext.R3(a) notification is issued on 14.07.2009, the same is subject to the imperative condition contained under Sec.71(3)(b) of Act, 1988. Therefore, the State Government had no other option than to grant sufficient number of stage carriage permits to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in accordance with law. Even though Ext.R3(a) notification is issued on 14.07.2009, the same is subject to the imperative condition contained under Sec.71(3)(b) of Act, 1988. Moreover, Article 46 of the Constitution of India under Part-IV is relevant to the context, which read thus: “46. Promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections.- The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.” 20. That apart, Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India is relevant to the context, which read thus: “15. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.- (1) x x x x x x x x (2) x x x x x x x x (3) x x x x x x x x (4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.” which thus means, the provisions of the Constitution discussed above are to be read into Section 71(3)(b) of Act, 1988, which cannot be altered or watered down by issuing a notification by the State Government. To put it otherwise, clause (b) operates as a special provision ensuring the upliftment of the member of the SC/ST community as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution of India. Therefore, any manner of interference with the said provision by the State Government will be unconstitutional. Even though provisions of Chapter VI of Act, 1988, has overriding effect over the provisions of Chapter V or any other law, it can only be viewed as subject to the reservation created under Sec.71(3)(b) of Act, 1988. Therefore, in my considered opinion, so long as the said provision remains in the statute without being tinkered in any manner, the reservation shall be retained intact. Above all, Article 15(4) of the Constitution read along with Article 46 has definitely a march over Ext.R3(a) notification issued by the State Government. Therefore, in my considered opinion, so long as the said provision remains in the statute without being tinkered in any manner, the reservation shall be retained intact. Above all, Article 15(4) of the Constitution read along with Article 46 has definitely a march over Ext.R3(a) notification issued by the State Government. So also, taking into account the aforesaid provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Articles 15(4) and 46 of the Constitution of India, it is clear that, Sec.71(3) (b) was brought into existence to serve the laudable object as provided under the Constitution of India. 21. I also bear in mind the principles of law laid down by the apex court in the judgments in 'Charan Singh v. State of Punjab and Others' [ 1997 (1) SCC 151 ], and 'Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India and others v. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association and others' [ 2015 (12) SCC 308 : 2015 KHC 4016], wherein the objective of Article 46 of the Constitution was taken into consideration, and held that State shall always strive in order to promote and translate the objectives of the framers of the Constitution. 22. Even though learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation has invited my attention to the judgments of the apex court in 'H.C. Narayanappa and others v. State of Mysore and others' [ AIR 1960 SC 1073 ], 'Abdul Gafoor, Proprietor, Shaheen Motor Service, Channaryaatna v. State of Mysore and others' [ AIR 1961 SC 1556 ], 'J.Y. Kondala Rao and others v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and others' [ AIR 1961 SC 82 ], 'A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Regional Transport Authority and another' [ (2005) 4 SCC 391 ] and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in 'Akash Dev v. State of Kerala and Others' [2015 (3) KLJ 32], to drive home the predominance of Chapter VI of Act, 1988, they are all judgments dealing with ordinary and normal situations, and therefore, the principles of law laid down in those judgments may not apply to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 23. 23. In my considered opinion, by virtue of the aforestated provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the provisions of the Constitution discussed above, it is evident that paramount consideration shall be given to the upliftment of the weaker section of the society, viz., Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, when the society was unable to carry on the operation of the stage carriage, it is only apposite that any person who belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is given the opportunity to operate on the route. 24. Accordingly, it is evident that, the 1st respondent has failed to take into account the aforesaid aspects while considering the permit application submitted by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, there is no doubt in my mind that, Ext.P7 order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and illegality, justifying interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I quash Ext.P7 and direct the 1st respondent to re-consider the application submitted by the petitioner, and if there are no other legal impediments standing in the way, issue permit to the petitioner, treating it as one among the 100 city permits taken care of under Ext.P2 notification issued by the State Government, dated 14.08.2009. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.