Judgment:
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.
1. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'K.S.R.T.C.') is the appellant in all these cases. W.A. No. 1270/2009 is treated as the main case for the purpose of referring to exhibits and parties. The 1st respondent applied for a temporary permit on the route Vattappara- Ernakulam-Kaloor via Peppathy, Mulanthuruthy, Chottanikkara, Thiruvankulam, Thripunithura, Vyttila and Kaloor Kadavanthra road. It is submitted that he was operating on the route for quite some time. But, when he applied for re-issue of the temporary permit, taking into account the objection raised by the K.S.R.T.C., the application for temporary permit was rejected by Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam, by issuing Ext.P5 decision dated 19.7.2008. The said order reads as follows:
Heard. The application is for temporary permit for one year Under Section 104. of the MV Act lays down that 'since the scheme is published Under Section 100(3) in respect of any route the RTA shall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme.' It is a prohibitory clause. However the provision reads that where no application for a permit has been made by the STA in respect of any notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme the RTA may grant temporary permit to any person in respect of such notified route subject to the condition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of permit to the STU in respect of the route. It is a provision to maintain service of S/C in between the period of actual notification and assume service by the STU. It is not a mandatory provision. The scheme approved early on 28.8.1961 No. 65598/TA4160/DW as Ernakulam - Muvattupuzha and STU started several Stage Carriage service on the route. Hence the provision to Section 104 is not revelant now.
(ii) The temporary permit applied is not in the notified route but only overlaps on the notified route. Hence permit can be granted according to the scheme i.e., without connecting and passing through two or more intermediate points. But the route applied connects and passes through two intermediate points Thiruvankulam and Tripunithura.
(iii) Also the portion of the route from Tripunithura to Ernakulam overlaps on the approved supplementation scheme Ernakulam - The kkady published vide SRO 444/08 dated 06.5.2008. Hence rejected.
2. 1st respondent challenged Ext.P5 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The STAT dismissed the appeal by Ext.P9 judgment dated 10.9.2008. Challenging Exts.P5 and P9, the Writ Petition was filed. The K.S.R.T.C filed a counter affidavit resisting the prayers in the Writ Petition. But, the learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, allowed the Writ Petition. Hence, this appeal by the K.S.R.T.C.
3. We heard the learned Counsel on both sides. The learned standing counsel for the K.S.R.T.C. submitted that they are mainly pressing only point No. (ii) mentioned in Ext.P5 for rejection of the permit. Ernakulam- Muvattupuzha is a nationalised route covered by Annexure-B nationalisation scheme. Ernakulam - Muvattupuzha is the 1st route mentioned in Annexure-A of the said scheme. Tripunithura, Thiruvankulam, Puthencruz and Valagom are the intermediate points. The K.S.R.T.C. is operating several services on that route. Therefore, the private operators cannot get any permit touching Ernakulam- Muvattupuzha route, except in accordance with the scheme. The scheme provides that private operators cannot operate on any route, connecting or passing through two intermediate points. The route Vattapara-Ernakula-Kaloor touches Thiruvankulam and Tripunithura, which are two intermediate points on Ernakulam Muvattupuzha nationalised route. Therefore, the point No. (ii) mentioned in Ext.P5 for rejecting the application was legal and valid. There was no reason to interfere with the same, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel. The learned Counsel for the party respondents supported the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
4. Temporary permits having duration of one year could be granted on a notified route, if the State Transport Undertaking is not operating on the route. It is common ground that K.S.R.T.C. is operating several services on the route Ernakulam- Muvattupuzha. Therefore, the private operators cannot get any permit on that route, except in accordance with the nationalisation scheme. We notice that it is a complete exclusion scheme with exception. The private operators can operate without connecting or passing through two intermediate points of the notified routes. The permit on the route Vattappara-Ernakulam-Kaloor connects and passes through Thiruvankulam and Tripunithura, which are two intermediate points on the nationalised route Ernakulam- Muvattupuzha. Therefore, the direction of the learned Single Judge to grant temporary permit is unsustainable.
5. We notice that the permits involved in the other connected cases also touches the aforementioned two points, namely , Thiruvankulam and Thripunithura. Therefore, the direction of the learned Single Judge in all the connected cases were also liable to set aside. We do so.
In the result, the Writ Appeals are allowed and the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.