IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34713 of 2007(G)
1. S.SREEKUMAR, S/O N.SREEDHARAN,
... Petitioner
2. PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS FEDERATION,
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, RTA, KOLLAM.
3. KSRTC, REP. BY ITS DTO, KOLLAM.
4. V.SREEKUMAR, S/O VISWANATHA PILLAI,
5. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
For Respondent :SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :15/07/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) 34713 of 2007
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated: JULY 15, 2008
JUDGMENT
The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2. By
Ext.P2 order of the RTA, the application made by the 4th
respondent for grant of regular permit was rejected on the
ground that a portion of the route in question overlaps the
Thiruvananthapuram – Alappuzha notified scheme and that the
same is in violation of the scheme notification dated 9.5.2007.
Against this order the 4th respondent filed M.V.A.A.No.605/2007
before the STAT and the Tribunal by Ext.P4 judgment allowed
the appeal and directed that the permit applied for be granted
subject to settlement of timings.
2. The 1st petitioner is a rival operator and the 2nd
petitioner is the Federation of Private Bus Operators’
Association.
3. A Full Bench of this Court in Binu Chacko v. RTA,
Pathanamthitta – 2006 (2) KLT 172 has held that the rival
operator cannot object to the grant of permit on the ground that
it affects his rights. In this case, the petitioners’ case is that the
WP(C) 34713/2007
2
grant is in violation of the notification dated 9.5.2007 issued
under sec.99 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the judgment
referred to above, the Full Bench was also considering such a
case and despite that, it was held that the writ petitioner, being a
rival operator, had no locus standi to challenge the grant.
Therefore, following the Full Bench decision, this writ petition
also deserves to be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent has made
reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in Mithilesh Rani
and Others v. RTA, Dehradun and others – AIR 1994 SC 2229
wherein an objection raised by private bus operators on the
ground that the grant was in violation of the scheme notification
was declined to be entertained by the Apex Court as the said
objection was not forthcoming from the State Transport
Undertaking.
Be that as it may, since the position is concluded against
the petitioners in view of the Full Bench judgment referred to
above. this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
mt/-