IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2417 of 2007()
1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NIRMALA COLLEGE OF INFORMATION
... Respondent
2. MILTAN THOMAS,
3. ABILASH BABU K.V.,
4. VIPIN MOHAN,
5. RAHUL K.P.,
For Petitioner :SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC
For Respondent :SRI.JIJO PAUL
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :02/09/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.2417 of 2007
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 2nd day of September, 2008
JUDGMENT
A.K.Basheer, J.
Are the students of Nirmala College of Information
Technology, an Off-Campus Study Centre of the Mahatma Gandhi
University, entitled to get concession in fares for their travel in the
buses of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (“Corporation”
for short)?
2. The above question was answered in the affirmative by
the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the respondents
herein who are the Off Campus Study Centre and the students studying
in the said institution.
3. Impugning the order passed by the learned Single Judge,
it is contended on behalf of the Corporation that the students of the
Off-Campus Study Centres would not be entitled to get concession
tickets particularly since the Corporation has issued Ext.R1(d) order
revoking the earlier decision taken by the Corporation in this regard.
4. In the nature of the contention raised by the appellant it
is necessary to refer to some essential facts of the case to consider the
question whether any interference is warranted in the orders passed by
W.A.No.2417/2007 -2-
the learned Single Judge in the writ petition.
5. It was contended by the petitioners in the writ petition
that they were entitled to get concession in fares in the buses run by the
Corporation in view of Ext.P1 order dated August 12, 2003 issued by the
Corporation. In Ext.P1 the Corporation had ordered that students of all
Off-Campus Centres mentioned therein would be entitled to get
concession in fares. (A perusal of Ext.P1 will show that Nirmala
College of Information Technology (Petitioner No.1) was enlisted as
Serial No.5 in the said order).
6. However, in the counter affidavit it was contended
that the Corporation had been incurring heavy losses during the last few
years and therefore it had been decided to cancel Ext.P1 order. It was
in this context, the Corporation had pressed in to service Ext.R1 (d) order
dated July 9, 2007. In that order all Unit Officers of the Corporation
were informed that students studying in Off-Campus Centres under the
Distance Education Scheme in Aided and unaided institutions will not be
eligible for concession ticket as mentioned in Ext.P1 memorandum.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant
that the Corporation is justified in issuing Ext.R1 (d) order reversing its
earlier decision not only for the reason that students studying in Off-
Campus Centres cannot be treated on par with regular students of other
educational institutions, but also for the reason that the Corporation is
W.A.No.2417/2007 -3-
facing acute financial constraints.
8. But, learned counsel for the petitioners has invited our
attention to Ext.R1 (b) Notification issued by the Government whereby
the rates of fares in the Stage Carriages in the State have been fixed by
the Government. Clause ‘G’ of Ext.R1 (b) which is relevant for the
purpose of this case is extracted hereunder:
“G. Students Concession
Full time regular students, not engaged in
any other calling or profession studying in any
recognized educational institution for a
recognized course and full time students not
engaged in any other calling or profession
studying privately in any institution and who have
registered their names in any of the Universities
in Kerala as a student for a particular course or
private study admitted by a University in Kerala,
travelling in a stage carriage for a distance not
exceeding 40 Kilometers for a single journey for
the purpose of attending classes, from residence
to institution shall be eligible for concession in
City/Town and Ordinary Mofusil Services at the
rate of 75% of the fare fixed as per Notification
No.G.O.(P) No.24/2001/Transport dated 28th
September, 2001. The amount shall be rounded
off to the lower multiple of 10 paise for each
journey for the purpose of
computation………………….”
9. A perusal of the above clause undoubtedly shows that,
students pursuing their private study in any institution after registering
their names in any of the institutions under any of the Universities in
Kerala would also be entitled to concession in bus fares. As rightly
W.A.No.2417/2007 -4-
pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners it may not be open
to the Corporation to contend for the position that Ext.R1 (b)
Notification issued by the Government will not be binding on it.
Further, it is the admitted position that the fares in the buses under the
Corporation are being fixed by the Government. If that be so, it cannot
be said that Clause ‘G’ in Ext.R1 (b) which prescribes concessional rates
of bus fare to the students will not be binding on the Corporation.
Obviously, it was in terms of a similar clause in the earlier notification
that the Corporation had issued Ext.P1 giving benefit of concession
tickets to the students who are studying in Off-Campus Centres of the
School of Distance Education under the Mahatma Gandhi University. It
may also be noticed that the Corporation does not have a case that
petitioner No.1 is not an institution which qualifies the status of an Off-
Campus Centre under the Mahatma Gandhi University.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our
attention to the decision of the Apex Court in Chittoor Zilla
Vyavasayadarula Sangham Vs. A.P.State Electricity Board and Others
{2001 (1) SCC 396}. The said decision related to certain orders issued
by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under the Electricity (Supply)
Act, 1948. It is true that in the said decision the Apex Court observed
that, any direction issued by a State Government may be binding on the
Board only to the extent that it subserve the Board in performing its
W.A.No.2417/2007 -5-
statutory obligation within the permissible limits of Ss.49 and 59 of the
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. A perusal of the provisions contained in
the above two sections would show that they relate to sale of electricity
by the Board and also the general principles of Board’s finances. Having
gone through the judgment, we find that the observations and the dictum
laid down by the Apex Court in the said decision have no application to
the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.
11. In the other decision cited before us by the learned
counsel for the appellant in T.J.Joseph Vs. State of Kerala (1966 KLT
479), the question that came up for consideration related to the validity
of Rule 251 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1961. The impugned
portion of the said Rule provided that operators of stage carriages shall
be entitled to collect from a student of any recognised educational
institution travelling in stage carriages for the purpose of attending the
classes or returning therefrom only one-half of the fare otherwise
payable under the directions issued by the Government. Having
carefully perused the judgment, we are unable to find any co-relation
between the case on hand and the issue that came up before this Court in
the above case.
12. As mentioned earlier, the Corporation had issued
Ext. R1 (d) order in July, 2008 cancelling its earlier order which enabled
the students of Off Campus Study Centres to avail of concession in bus
W.A.No.2417/2007 -6-
fares. The specious plea that is now being taken up by the Corporation
to justify its action to cancel Ext.P1 order is that the Corporation is in
acute financial stringency. But, so long as the Government has been
following the policy of extending the benefit of concession in bus fares
to the students of educational institutions as a matter of policy and also
since the Government has all along recognised the students of Off
Campus Centres also for the said benefit as is revealed from clause ‘G’ in
Ext.R1 (b) Notification, we are unable to justify the action of the
Corporation in issuing Ext.R1 (d) order denying the said benefit to the
students of such Centres. In our view, the learned Judge was justified in
arriving at the above conclusion.
13. As mentioned earlier, the fares in the buses run by the
Corporation are being fixed by the Government. The Corporation is
bound to follow the fare pattern that is being fixed by the Government
from time to time. The Corporation has no other option but to accept the
policy of the Government in this regard. Therefore, the Corporation
cannot be allowed to say that it is empowered to issue an order
cancelling the benefit accorded by the Government to the students of
Off Campus Centres on its own because of financial stringency. In that
view of the matter, Ext.R1 (d) is totally vitiated and unenforceable.
Therefore, Ext.R1 (d) is liable to be quashed. We do so.
14. Resultantly, it is declared that the petitioners are
W.A.No.2417/2007 -7-
entitled to get the benefit of concession in bus fares for their travel in the
buses being operated by the Corporation. Thus the question posed for
consideration in the judgment is answered in the affirmative. The writ
appeal fails, it is accordingly dismissed.
15. Consequently, all pending interlocutory applications
are closed.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE
MS