JOHN THOMAS Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in all the three writ petitions are various Associations of Stage Carriage Operators, operating stage carriages, within the State on valid permits issued by the Regional Transport Authorities, who have been conferred with such powers under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989(hereinafter referred to as "the Act" and "the Rules"). The challenge is against Ext.P4 circular and the petitioners confine their challenge to the non-prescription of running time to "limited stop ordinary services" operating within the State as per valid permits issued by the RTA and timings settled, in properly convened conferences. The short facts leading to the issuance of Ext.P4 circular is that as early as in 1997, the Government had issued Circular No.3/1997 produced as Ext.P1 in W.P.(c) No.26649 of 2013; wherein the "ordinary mofussil services" and "limited stop ordinary services" were treated as two separate categories and were granted separate timings. However, in implementation of the same, difficulties were noticed and many of the operators approached this Court and by a common judgment dated 02.12.1998 in O.P.No.23828 of 1998, there was a direction to consider the difficulties projected by the "limited stop ordinary service" operators. Ext.P3 circular, hence, was issued by the State Transport Authority(STA) keeping in abeyance the running time stipulated in Ext.P1 from being implemented to "limited stop ordinary services". While such orders were made, it is submitted that one another person approached this Court with a public interest litigation, in which, this Court directed implementation of Ext.P1 order. The various operators who were not parties to the said public interest litigation approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court with an SLP, in which the order of abeyance made by Ext.P3, was directed to be continued and ultimately was remanded for fresh consideration by a Division Bench of this Court.

(2.) The decision on remand is Sebastian v. State of Kerala, 2005 3 KerLT 930], wherein this Court refused to intervene since the State Transport Authority and the State Government were carrying on the necessary exercise for a denovo consideration; and issued a direction to expedite such consideration. This has resulted in Ext.P4. However, when separate timings have been provided for Ordinary, Fast Passenger, Super Fast, Super Express, Super Delux and Hi- tech Buses, the petitioners are aggrieved by non-prescription of running time for operation of "limited stop ordinary services".

(3.) The Government has also filed detailed counter affidavit, in which, it has been explained that Ext.P4 was the result of deliberations and discussions in which the Association of Stage Carriage Operators were also participated and Ext.P4 was introduced after taking the views of each and every association of operators. The counter affidavit asserts that such decision taken, with the intention of avoiding unhealthy competition as also increasing road accidents, ought not to be lightly interfered with. It is also submitted on behalf of the Government that "limited stop ordinary service" is not a category recognized in the Act and Rules and hence there is absolutely no necessity for prescription of separate timings for the same.