KERALA TAXI DRIVERS ORGANIZATION Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of writ petitions, W.P.(C) Nos. 17429, 19931, 25842, 22767, 22700, 19647, 18217, 15942, 15181, 16924 and 12378 of 2025, the petitioners, who are stage carriage operators, tourist taxi operators and educational institution bus operators, challenge the decisions of the State Transport Authority (hereinafter, "STA") dtd. 24/1/2025 and the circular of Transport Commissioner dtd. 28/4/2025 mandating the installation of cameras with driverfatigue detection sensors, production of Police Clearance Certificate (PCC) and the installation of geo-fencing facility. Since common questions of fact and law arise for consideration, these writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 19931, 25842, 19647, 12378 of 2025 are aggrieved by the decision of the STA taken on 24/1/2025, by which three conditions were stipulated and made applicable to existing stage carriages with effect from 1/4/2025. These included: (i) production of police clearance certificates by the registered owner, driver, and conductor; (ii) installation of cameras with driver-fatigue detection sensors; and (iii) geo-fencing facility with a recorder. The petitioners essentially contend that this decision was taken without affording notice or an opportunity of hearing to any of the stakeholders. It is pointed out that the agenda for the meeting published on 9/1/2025 contained 20 items concerning renewal and variation of inter-state permits. However, on 23/1/2025, an additional agenda was prepared introducing departmental item No.3, without prior notice, for consideration of proposals relating to 503 formulated routes. While granting the formulated routes, it was decided that 14 permit conditions would apply to such routes. The STA further incorporated Condition No.15, making conditions 1, 4, and 8 applicable to existing stage carriages with effect from 1/4/2025.

(3.) Opposing the writ petitions, the learned Senior Government Pleader Smt.Surya Binoy argues that the STA has ample power as seen from Sec. 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The argument that stakeholders were not heard also cannot be accepted as the insistence on PCC is on the driver, the conductor those employed and not on the owners of the stage carriage and in the absence of any one of them who is likely to be affected by the decisions of the STA maintaining a challenge, the plea of lack of notice put forth by the owners of the stage carriages cannot be entertained.