RAHUL TOM Vs. K S R T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Kerala State Transport Employees Association and the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation hereinafter referred to as the "K.S.R.T.C.", approached this Court with O.P. Nos. 22415 of 2000 and 23915 of 2000 respectively, praying for the issue of a Writ of certiorari to quash the grant of permits by the Regional Transport Authority, Idukki to one Rahul Tom, hereinafter referred to as an "operator" on the route Kumily to Kottayam. According to the K.S.R.T.C. and the Employees Association, no permit could be granted by the Regional Transport Authorities since the routes were part of notified schemes under Chap.6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned Single Judge having upheld the challenge to the grants and having quashed the permits, the operator has filed W.A. Nos. 2526 of 2000 and 2527 of 2000 challenging the decision of the learned Single Judge. Three other operators similarly situated along with the Kerala Private Bus Operators Association, Changanacherry Unit, represented by its President have filed W.A. Nos. 3203 of 2000 and 3204 of 2000 challenging the decision of the learned single Judge after obtaining permission from this Court. The Kerala State Transport Employees Association, the Petitioner in O.P. 22415 of 2000, giving rise to W.A. 2526 of 2000, has filed W.A. 3105 of 2000 complaining that the learned Single Judge was not justified in not granting specific reliefs or the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the Original Petition and was not justified in couching the relief only on general terms. A number of other operators have come forward to get themselves impleaded in the main Writ Appeal and those impleading petitions have also been allowed and all counsel were heard.

(2.) The genesis of the dispute may now be referred to. The operator applied for two regular permits on the route Kumily to Kottayam before the Regional Transport Authority, Idukki, who is the primary authority. By the order Annexure - A produced with the memorandum of Writ Appeal in W.A. 2526 of 2000, the Regional Transport Authority, Idukki granted the route permit subject to counter signature by the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam and subject to settlement of timings. According to the operator, these grants were not challenged then and there, either by filing a revision or by filing an Original Petition before this Court. The timings were settled by the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority, Idukki by orders dated 13.6.2000 and 7.7.2000 respectively. We may note here that even before the Regional Transport Authority, Idukki, the District Transport Officer, Kottayam, for and on behalf of K.S.R.T.C., had raised objection to the granting of permit in view of the fact that the proposed route violates Thekkady Ernakulam scheme and Kottayam Thekkady scheme. The actual permits were issued to the operator on 13.6.2000 and 7.7.2000 respectively and it was at that stage that the Original Petitions were filed before this Court invoking Art.226 of the Constitution of India challenging the said orders fixing the timings and generally challenging the permits issued. The essential plea raised was that the grant of permit was in violation of Ext. P1 modified scheme published on 1.11.1966. There was also a prayer to cancel all regular permits granted after the coming into force of the scheme on 12.10.1966. The contention of the K.S.R.T.C. and the Employees Association was that once a scheme was approved and adopted, no permit could be granted on the route or in any segment of that route unless it was so permitted by the scheme itself. Since there was no such permission in the scheme adopted, the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction or power to grant a permit to an operator subsequent to the coming into force of the scheme. The Original Petitions were resisted essentially on the pleas that since there was no challenge to the original grant, no effective relief can be granted to the petitioners. The petitioners in the Original Petitions had an alternate remedy available under S.90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. There was no violation of the scheme as contended. The scheme relied on was only a supplementation scheme in Form III of the Kerala Motor Vehicles (State Transport Undertakings) Rules, 1960 and the scheme does not exclude private services. The learned single Judge, in the judgment under appeal, came to the conclusion that even if the scheme relied on by the K.S.R.T.C. was only a supplementary scheme (the Rules call it as "supplementation scheme"), what is protected under the scheme are only the existing operators in private sector and new permits cannot be granted except for K.S.R.T.C. Incidentally the learned Judge also noticed that the operator in question was a new entrant. The learned Judge held that a scheme in terms of Chap.6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as laid down by the Supreme Court, was a self contained and self operative scheme and was a law by itself. Therefore, the right to apply for and obtain a stage carriage permit stood frozen to all private operators except as saved under the scheme itself. The only exemption under the original scheme was with regard to the existing operators. Since the operator in question did not come within the exempted category, the grant of permit to the operator could not be sustained. On this basis the learned single Judge quashed the orders Exts. P4 and P5 and allowed the Original Petitions. As we have noticed, the petitioners in O.P. 22415 of 2000 have come forward with their appeal submitting that further and precise relief should have been granted to the petitioners in the Original Petitions and the operator has come up joined by other private operators, questioning the decision of the learned Judge on the scope and operation of the scheme.

(3.) Chap.6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 contains special provisions relating to State Transport Undertakings. S.98 of the Act very clearly says that the provisions of Chap.6 and the rules and orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chap.5 or in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. Chap.5 deals with control of transport vehicles. Whereas S.66 of the Act deals with the necessity for permits, S.67 confers power on the State Government to control road transport. S.70 of the Act contemplates the making of an application for stage carriage permit. S.71 of the Act deals with the procedure in dealing with such an application. It is by applying S.70 of the Act that an operator, like the operator here, initiate steps for the grant of a permit. In other words, his right to have a permit on fulfilling the required formalities stems from or springs from the relevant provisions, which are in Chap.5 of the Act. Once the formalities regarding the preparation and publication of proposal regarding road transport service of a State Transport Undertaking are complied with, objections considered and the scheme is notified, the consequences are laid down in S.104 of the Act. It may be proper to read S.104 of the Act at this stage.