REMESH KUMAR Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE substantive dispute raised in both these writ petitions are with respect to the operation of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity ''KSRTC ''), which by its timings, in effect interferes with the operation of private stage carriage operators, for reason only of the State Transport Undertaking (for brevity ''STU '') having not obtained a settlement of timings from the competent authority. The contentions are raised in the background of both the stage carriage operators in the two writ petitions carrying on operations in non -notified routes, where no Scheme is in operation.

(2.) THE petitioner in W.P.(C).No.22693/2013 has been operating in the route Puthoor -Palghat. Exhibit P1 is the permit, which he has obtained in the year 2011 and is valid for five years, i.e., till 2016. The said permit has been valid for the last 35 years, though the operators and carriages have changed from time to time. The petitioner is aggrieved by the operation of the KSRTC, which was commenced on 04.08.2013. The petitioner contends that the KSRTC has no valid permit issued in the route Mannarghat -Palghat, which is negatived by the KSRTC by production of Ext.R3(a) to R3(d). The petitioner's grievance is against the operation of the KSRTC in the route commenced from 04.08.2013 only, purportedly based on Exhibit R3(a) issued on 07.09.2011. The learned counsel for the KSRTC, per contra, contends that, admittedly, a small portion between Manarghat and Palghat falls within the notified route. As long as the overlapping is not stated to be objectionable as per the provisions of Chapter VI, this contention has to be immediately negatived and I do so.

(3.) IN fact, both the petitioners do not challenge the grant of permit or operation as such, but are aggrieved by the timings on which the KSRTC operates, which, according to them, has not been fixed by the competent authority. It is seen that the DTO of the KSRTC has proposed a timing, in both the cases, on which the KSRTC is operating, which is objected to by the petitioners. Evidently, there has been no settlement of timing by the competent authority in the case of the STU in both the cases. The KSRTC relies on the exclusion provided under Rule 212 of of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ''the KMV Rules '') to contend that though a settlement of timings would be necessary with respect to the grant of permit to a private operator, the KSRTC having been specifically excluded, it is the prerogative of the KSRTC to decide upon its own timings. In that context, W.P.(C).28394/2013 raises a challenge against Rule 212 to the extent it excludes the KSRTC; as being, ultra vires the powers conferred under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for brevity ''MV Act of 1988 '' or the ''new Act ''), more specifically, Section 96 of Chapter V. Rule 212 reads as under: