ANISH V KUMAR Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three cases raise a very peculiar issue viz. whether a permit can be issued connecting two intersecting points in a nationalised route in violation of the scheme notified by the Government although such prohibition of grant of permits would not in any way benefit either the KSRTC or the travelling public in any manner. In all these three cases, the nationalised route is the same but the intersecting points between which grant of permits are applied for are different. Therefore, for the purpose of deciding these cases, it is sufficient to refer only to the facts in one case, which we choose as W.P.(C) No. 26307/2004. The facts are as follows.

(2.) The petitioner applied for a regular permit on the inter-district route Kadakkal-Parippally, (via) Nilamel-Pallickal. The R.T.A., Kollam considered the application and rejected it by Ext. PI decision dated 25-1-2003. Appeal filed by the petitioner against that order was dismissed by Ext. P5 judgment dated 31-7-2004 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The writ petition is filed challenging Exts. P1 and P5. The reason for rejection of the application for permit was that it connects two intermediate points at Parippally and Nilamel on the Thiruvananthapuram-Kollam-Kottarakkara-Thiruvananthapuram circular route, which is covered by the nationalisation scheme, which is Ext. P7. All the routes indicated in Annexure-A of Ext. P7 and connecting or passing through any two or more intermediate points of such route are covered by the said scheme. It is also not disputed that Parippally and Nilamel are intermediate points on such circular route and therefore it would connect two intermediate points on the notified routes. The scheme concerned is a complete exclusion scheme with exception. The contention of the petitioner is that Parippally is a terminus and his route cuts across the nationalised routes at Nilamel. Therefore, limited overlapping without passing through or connecting two intermediate points is tolerated since an intersection even in complete exclusion scheme is permissible. So, touching at Nilamel may be treated as intersection and if that be so, permit can be granted. In support of that submission, the petitioner also places reliance on a judgment of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 30812/2004.

(3.) The present nationalised route has a peculiarity unlike other routes which is that it is a circular route. It starts from Thiruvananthapuram, passes through Attingal and Parippally, goes to Kollam, from there goes to Kottarakkara and then passes through Nilamel and back to Thiruvananthapuram. This is a very long circuitous route covering a lot of distance by the very nature of the route, whereas the distance between Parippally and Nilamel between which the permit is applied for by the petitioner is comparatively of much smaller distance. No sensible person who wants to go to Nilamel from Parippally or vice versa would ever board a KSRTC bus from Parippally to go to Nilamel-via-Kollam and Kottarakkara and vice-versa by wasting time and money, which time and money would be rather very considerable going by the distance one would have to travel along the nationalised route to reach the respective destinations.