IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20505 of 2006(N)
1. KSRTC REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. P.G.SURESH, PAARAKKAL HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR, SC, KSRTC
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
Dated :03/10/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.
-----------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 20505 OF 2006-N
-----------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
The petitioner K.S.R.T.C challenges Ext.P2 decision of the
S.T.A.T. The 2nd respondent herein applied for a permit on the route
Thottipal – Thrissur, via Mulangu, Pallissery, Arattuvazhy Colony.
Oorakam, Cherppu, Poochunnipadam, Thaikkattussery Overbridge,
Ollur and Kuriachira. The said application was rejected by the R.T.A.,
Thrissur by Ext.P1 decision dated 17.5.2005. The R.T.A rejected the
application, relying on three grounds. The first ground was that the
route overlaps Ollur – Thrissur sector for about 8 kms on the notified
route Ernakulam – Thrissur. The second ground was that the sectors
Thrissur – Ollur and Oorakam – Poochunnipadam are well served.
The third ground was that the vehicle offered was already covered by a
permit. The S.T.A.T found that the finding that the route is well
served, was not a ground to reject the application for grant of permit.
It was also found that the two intermediate points of the route are not
overlapped. The fact that the vehicle is covered by another permit, is
WPC 20505/06 2
not a ground, in view of the decision in E.P.Alevikutty v. The
Regional Transport Authority & Ors. [2005(1) KLJ 205], it was
held. Based on the above finding, the S.T.A.T allowed the appeal by
Ext.P2 judgment. Challenging the said judgment of the S.T.A.T., this
writ petition was filed. I notice that only one ground is taken in the
writ petition, that is, the route in question overlaps two intermediate
points covered by Ext.P3 scheme.
2. Heard the learned standing counsel for the K.S.R.T.C. I find
that all the three grounds taken by the S.T.A.T to allow the appeal are
legal and valid. A route well-served is no longer a ground to reject the
application for grant of permit, in view of the decision of the Apex
Court in Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India [AIR 1992 SC 443]. Even
if no vehicle is offered, the applicant is entitled to get the permit, if he
is otherwise eligible, in view of the decision in E.P.Alevikutty’s case
(supra). I notice that as per Ext.P3 scheme, the intermediate points of
the route Ernakulam – Thrissur are Palarivattom, Kalamassery,
Alwaye, Angamaly, Koratty, Chalakkudy, Potta, Aloor Junction,
Vallakunnu, Pulloor, Irinjalakuda, Oorakom and Koorkancherry. Ollur
WPC 20505/06 3
is not an intermediate point. Therefore, touching Ollur and Thrissur,
which is one of the termini, does not offend the scheme. So, the
judgment of the S.T.A.T does not suffer from any infirmity.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed.
3rd October, 2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
Nm/