IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28380 of 2007(C)
1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
3. K.SETHUMADHAVAN, S/O KRISHNAN,
4. P.K.SANTHOSH, NO.3, T.M.COMPLEX,
For Petitioner :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
For Respondent :SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :16/06/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
=W.P.(C) = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = =
Nos. 28380/07 & 1243/08
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 16th June 2008
J U D G M E N T
W.P.(C) No. 28380/07, is filed by Kerala State Road Transport
Employees Association (CITU), Palakkad Unit seeking to quash Exts.
P4 and P5. Exts. P4 and P5 are the proceedings of the 1st
respondent granting permit in respect of stage carriages of
Respondents 3 and 4. It is contended that the permits granted
overlaps the routes notified as per Exts.P1 and P2 notifiations and
therefore, the grants are illegal. It is contended that the position is
squarely covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in
Rahul Tom v. K.S.R.T.C. {2001(3) KLT 261}.
2. W.P.(C) No. 1243/08 is filed by the 4th respondent in W.P.
(C) No. 28380/07 complaining of delay in settling the timings in
respect of the permit granted to him. Since the issues raised in
these two writ petitions are connected, there cases were taken up
for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. When the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the
contesting respondents in W.P.(C) No. 28380/07 raised a
W.P.(C) No. 28380/07 & 1243/08
– 2 –
preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ
petition. According to them, the writ petition is not maintainable as
it is filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Employees Association
(CITU), Palakkad Unit, a trade union of the employees of the KSRTC.
According to the respondents, the said trade union cannot be an
“aggrieved person” to maintain the writ petition challenging the
grant of permits in their favour. They relied on the Full Bench
Judgment in Binu Chacko v. RTA, Pathanamthitta {2006(2) KLT 172
(FB)}. This contention is sought to be resisted by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly by referring to the
decision in 2001(3) KLT 261 (supra) and contending that the
aforesaid case decided by the Division Bench arose from a writ
petition filed by this very Association. According to her, by the
aforesaid judgment this Court has already recognized the locus
standi of the petitioner and therefore the contention questioning the
maintainability of the writ petition has no substance.
3. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. In
my view, the objection to the maintainability of W.P.(C) No.
28380/07, raised by the learned counsel for the contesting
W.P.(C) No. 28380/07 & 1243/08
– 3 –
respondents is liable to be accepted. A Full Bench of this Court in
Binu Chacko v. RTA, Pathanamthitta {2006(2) KLT 172 (FB)} held
that an existing operator is not a person aggrieved by the grant of
permit and is not competent to challenge the grant of permit on the
ground that the grant of permit to the opposite party prejudicially
affects his rights. In fact in one of the cases dealt with by the Full
Bench, the contention raised was that the grant of permit was in
violation of scheme notification.
4. If an existing operator himself is not a person aggrieved to
maintain a challenge against grant of permits, in my view, an
employee or a trade union of an existing operator, be it the KSRTC
or a private person, cannot stand on a better footing. Petitioners
could not explain to me if they were in any manner affected by the
grant of permit in favour of the contesting respondents.
Therefore, not only that the petitioners are not affected by the
permits granted to the contesting respondents, they are also not
“persons aggrieved” to maintain a writ petition.
5. Counsel relied on the decision of the Division Bench in
Rahul Tom v. K.S.R.T.C. {2001(3) KLT 261} and contended that in
W.P.(C) No. 28380/07 & 1243/08
– 4 –
the aforesaid judgment this Court has accepted the locus standi of
the petitioner. True, that writ petition was filed by the petitioner-
Association, but then, on a reading of that judgment, I notice that
the locus standi of the petitioner was not an issue that was raised or
considered in that judgment. That apart, this very issue has been
considered by the Full Bench in the case of Binu Chacko referred to
above. Therefore the judgment in the case of Rahul Tom will not
improve the case of the petitioner.
6. In these circumstances, I hold that the petitioner is not a
“person aggrieved” to maintain this writ petition for the same
reasons which were upheld by the Full Bench in the aforesaid
judgment. Consequently, W.P.(C) No. 28380/07 will stand
dismissed.
7. As a necessary consequence, W.P.(C) No. 1243/08 where
the petitioner complains of delay in settlement of timing will stand
disposed of directing that the respondent, the Secretary, RTA,
Palakkad shall convene the timing conference and settle the timing
as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of
production of a copy of this judgment.
W.P.(C) No. 28380/07 & 1243/08
– 5 –
In the result W.P.(C) No. 28380/07 will stand dismissed and
W.P.(C) No. 1243/08 is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-