IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36513 of 2008(V)
1. M.THAHA, AGED 55, S/O. MOHAMMED KANNU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE
For Petitioner :SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :27/10/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = =
W.P.(C). No. 36513 OF 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = =
Dated this the 27th day of October 2009.
JUDGMENT
The Government de-nationalized routes within Trivandrum
City during 1994 and it was decided to allot 100 permits to
private operators along 50 routes which were then treated as
formulated routes. One of the nonformulated route is Veli Boat
Club-Kundamankadavu. Apparently, the petitioner was operating
a Stage Carriage in the said route for more than four years from
1994 to 1998. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
conducting a service in the said route had allegedly defaulted its
service and thereupon Ext.P1 application for a temporary permit
was submitted by the petitioner. Ultimately, the said application
came to be considered pursuant to the directions in Ext.P4
judgment and by Ext.P5, the RTA granted temporary permit for
four months. Timing was settled as per Ext.P6. Successive
temporary permits were issued as evidenced by Exts.P7 to P11.
But an application as per Ext.P5 was rejected as per Ext.P15
order and affirmed by the Tribunal as per Ext.P20. Exts.P15 and
W.P.(C). No. 36513 OF 2008
2
P20 are challenged in this writ petition.
2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the second
respondent pointing out that the route in question was part of
the nationalized sector and it is not a formulated route available
to the private operators. Petitioner therefore, cannot claim a
right to be considered for a temporary permit in the said route
which is covered by a nationalized scheme. Therefore, Section
104 of the Motor Vehicles Act stands in the way of an application
for temporary permit being considered.
3. I heard Counsel on either sides.
4. That the route is not one of the formulated routes in
Trivandrum City available to the private operators is not
disputed by the petitioner. But learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that the K.S.R.T.C. has defaulted service in
the route and it is thereafter that an application for temporary
permit was submitted. The need of the travelling public has not
been satisfied and the application should have been considered
under 87(1)(c) of the Act , it is contended. It is further
contended that the application for temporary permit submitted
by the petitioner is permitted under the proviso to Section 104 of
W.P.(C). No. 36513 OF 2008
3
the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore it could be dealt with on
merits.
5. It is true that, the route in question is not one of the
formulated routes made available to the private operators. But,
if the K.S.R.T.C. has defaulted it’s service in the said route and
the need of the travelling public subsists, then obviously it will
open to the authority to consider the application for a temporary
permit.
6. In so far as the other reasons given in Ext.P15 are
concerned, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner that the vehicle currently under operation does not
suffer from any tax arrears. This submission is recorded. He
further submits that only a tax paid vehicle will be tendered for
consideration. This submission is also recorded.
7. For all these reasons, Exts.P15 and P20 are set aside.
The first respondent shall consider any application for a
temporary permit submitted either by the petitioner or by any
other person for the route Veli Boat Club-Kundamankadavu and
a decision shall be taken in accordance with law within two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is
W.P.(C). No. 36513 OF 2008
4
made clear that this direction to consider an application for
temporary permit on the aforementioned route will be operative
only if the K.S.R.T.C. has actually defaulted any service and is
not conducting a service in the said route. The R.T.A. shall
therefore give specific notice to the K.S.R.T.C. regarding this
aspect and if the K.S.R.T.C. is willing or is actually conducting a
service in the route, then the application submitted by the
petitioner or any other person for a temporary permit shall be
rejected without further enquiry in terms of Section 104 of the
Motor Vehicles Act. At any rate, an order shall be passed within
two months from the date of receipt of an application filed by the
petitioner along with the copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
kkms/