Kerala High Court
Kerala Road Transport Corporation vs Biju on 4 March, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:19780
WAs.1245 & 819/2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1245 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 9.11.2022 IN WP(C)
NO.11160 OF 2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695023
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 BIJU
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O. KURIACKO, KIZHAKKEKUNNEL HOUSE, EAST
MORAKKALA, KUMARAPURAM P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
690548
2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD P.O, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, PIN - 682030
3 THE SECRETARY
2025:KER:19780
WAs.1245 & 819/2023
2
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD
P.O, PIN - 682030
4 STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011.
BY ADVS.
ALIAS M.CHERIAN FOR R1
K.M.RAPHY(K/542/2012)
BRISTO S PARIYARAM(K/1756/2020)
AMEERA JOJO(K/001581/2023)
MINNU DARWIN(K/000631/2023)
OTHER PRESENT:
Sr. GP SRI.V K SHAMSUDHEEN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.819/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:19780
WAs.1245 & 819/2023
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 819 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 9.11.2022 IN WP(C)
NO.42623 OF 2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695023
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:
1 BIJU
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O, KURIACKO, KIZHAKKEKUNNEL HOUSE, EAST
MORAKKALA, KUMARAPURAM P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
683565
2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KAKKANAD P.O,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
2025:KER:19780
WAs.1245 & 819/2023
4
3 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD P.O, PIN - 682030
BY ADV ALIAS M.CHERIAN FOR R1
SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN SR.GP FOR R2 & R3
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1245/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:19780
WAs.1245 & 819/2023
5
JUDGMENT
[WA Nos.1245/2023 & 819/2023]
Easwaran S., J.
These appeals are preferred by the Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation (K.S.R.T.C.) aggrieved by the judgment of the learned
Single Judge dated 9.11.2022 in dismissing WP(C) No.11160/2020
preferred by it and allowing WP(C) No.42623/2018 preferred by the 1st
respondent herein issuing a direction to the Regional Transport
Authority to renew the temporary permit of the 1st respondent herein.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeals are
as follows:
The 1st respondent was a holder of permit in respect of a stage carriage
on the route Piravom - Kaloor (via) Thiruvaniyoor, Sasthamugal and
Thiruvankulam. In proceedings dated 23.02.2017, Ext.P1 in WP(C)
No.11160/2020, the Regional Transport Authority noticed that the 1st
respondent had preferred an application for renewal of the regular
permit in respect of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-07/AR-
2777 during 2006 and an error had crept in the route on which the
regular permit was issued to the vehicle and hence, the regular permit
was renewed as Piravom-Kaloor, instead of Thiruvankulam-Piravom.
Therefore, the Secretary, RTA was directed to make necessary
2025:KER:19780
WAs.1245 & 819/2023
corrections in the regular permit so as to continue on the route Piravom
- Thiruvankulam and to permit the 1st respondent to ply on the route
Thiruvankulam - Kaloor with a temporary permit with the existing time
schedule, in public interest. Aggrieved by the said decision, the 1st
respondent approached the State Transport Appellate Tribunal,
Ernakulam by Ext.P2 appeal. Later, the Regional Transport Authority,
by Ext.P3 proceedings dated 17.3.2018, directed the Secretary, RTA to
recall the temporary permit and to renew the regular permit as
Thiruvankulam-Piravom. The appellant-K.S.R.T.C though had no
grievance against the grant of original permit, however, sought to get
themselves impleaded before the Tribunal presumably after the
promulgation of a Scheme for the purpose of providing an efficient,
adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated passenger road
transport service relating to the Ernakulam KSRTC Bus Station -
Muvattupuzha KSRTC Bus Station, vide GO(P) No.5/2017/Tran dated
21.2.2017. The appellate Tribunal, considering the plea of the 1st
respondent, noticed the inconsistency in the plea of the K.S.R.T.C and
found that even going by the Scheme relied on by the K.S.R.T.C, the
entitlement of the 1st respondent to seek regular permit between
Piravom-Kaloor is not excluded. On finding that the 1st respondent
alone was discriminated, the Tribunal rejected the contention of the
2025:KER:19780
WAs.1245 & 819/2023
K.S.R.T.C and proceeded to issue the impugned direction to the
Regional Transport Authority to grant regular permit to the 1st
respondent between Piravom-Kaloor.
3. In WP(C) No.11160/2020 before the learned Single Bench,
the K.S.R.T.C impugned the judgment of the appellate Tribunal on the
ground that the 1st respondent had not filed any application for the
grant of a fresh regular permit on the route Piravom-Kaloor and that
the Regional Transport Authority had not granted the 1st respondent
any permit on the route Piravom-Kaloor. Extensive reliance was placed
on clause-4 of Ext.P4 Scheme to contend that those temporary permits
that are mentioned in the annexure alone are permitted to be renewed.
The learned Single Judge who considered the writ petition found that
the plea raised by the appellant was untenable on the ground that the
existing permit holders and the temporary permit holders were
permitted to ply along with the State Transport Undertaking.
4. Before us, it is contended by the appellant/K.S.R.T.C that
the 1st respondent, having not challenged Ext.P3 proceedings, was
precluded from prosecuting his appeal before the Tribunal and that the
Tribunal could not have ignored the Scheme and issued the impugned
directions. In support of the aforesaid contention, the appellant placed
reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in G.T.Venkataswamy
2025:KER:19780
WAs.1245 & 819/2023
Reddy v. State Transport Authority & Others [(2016) 8 SCC 402]. It is
the further case of the appellant that insofar as the writ petition filed
by the 1st respondent is concerned, the learned Single Judge could not
have issued a direction to the RTA to grant regular permit, going by the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in T.Mohammed v. Secretary,
R.T.A, Malappuram & Others [1993 (1) KLJ 750]. Therefore, it is
prayed that the impugned directions of the learned Single Judge be
interfered with in these intra-court appeals.
5. Heard Sri.P.C.Chacko, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the appellant-K.S.R.T.C, and Sri.Alias M.Cherian, the
learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, and
Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen, the learned Sr.Government Pleader appearing
on behalf of the State.
6. On consideration of the rival submissions raised across the
bar, we are of the considered view that the appellant-K.S.R.T.C is
completely misconceived in their challenge to the directions issued by
the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. We find from certain
indisputable facts that the 1st respondent was operating between
Piravom-Kaloor from 1996. At any rate, in 2006, the 1st respondent was
issued with a regular permit between Piravom-Kaloor. It is true that
when an application for renewal of permit was filed by the 1st
2025:KER:19780
WAs.1245 & 819/2023
respondent herein, one Sri.Sabu P.V. preferred a complaint stating that
the 1st respondent is not entitled to a regular permit on the route
Piravom - Kaloor. But, we hasten to note that the appellant has no
explanation before us of how it is aggrieved against the request of the
1st respondent. It must be noticed that the complaint against the 1st
respondent stood withdrawn at the instance of Sri.Sabu. The entire
proceedings, which culminated in the Ext.P1 order, were on the basis
of the said complaint, and once the complaint was withdrawn, the
substratum of the proceedings erodes, and therefore, the Regional
Transport Authority had no basis/authority to proceed with the
correction of the regular permit. Pertinently, we must also note that
from 2006 onwards, the 1st respondent was plying on the route Piravom-
Kaloor and neither the K.S.R.T.C nor the officials of the Transport
Authority had any grievance regarding the said permit. Therefore, we
are inclined to think that the Regional Transport Authority was
estopped from resiling from their earlier act of issuing a regular permit
between Piravom and Kaloor.
7. It is next contended before us by Sri.P.C.Chacko, the
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-K.S.R.T.C that
renewal of the regular permit would offend clause-4 of Ext.P4 Scheme
and further that the temporary permit of the 1st respondent is not
2025:KER:19780
WAs.1245 & 819/2023
included in the annexure to Ext.P4. We are afraid that the said
contention is completely untenable and has been raised without
properly understanding the scope of the Scheme. For the purpose of a
better understanding of the nature of the Scheme, we deem it
appropriate to extract clause-4 thereof.
"4. Whether the Yes, the existing regular permits in the
services are to be private sector as on the date of publication
operated by the of the Scheme in the Gazette will be
State Transport allowed to operate. The temporary
Undertaking to permits in the Annexure will also be
the exclusion of permitted to operate and they will be
other persons or permitted to convert their permits as
otherwise regular permits. No fresh permits shall be
granted nor shall the existing permits
varied in favour of any other operators
enabling them to conduct service
overlapping on the route as such or
portion thereof. Services by other State
Transport Undertakings at the
neighbouring State can be operated in
consultation with and after getting the no
objection certificate from the State
Transport Undertakings of Kerala."
A reading of the aforementioned clause shows that what is prohibited
is issuance of fresh permits and also variation of the existing permits.
2025:KER:19780
WAs.1245 & 819/2023
We fail to understand as to how the appellant can contend that the 1st
respondent is precluded from applying under Ext.P4 Scheme or how
Ext.P4 scheme prohibits the renewal of the permit held by the 1st
respondent. When we read the order of the Tribunal in the light of
Ext.P4 scheme, we are inclined to hold that the finding of the Tribunal
is perfectly justifiable since the Tribunal held that the 1st respondent
alone was deprived of the benefit due to the alleged mistake committed
by the official respondents. Had the service of the 1st respondent been
continued as temporary permit on the route Thiruvankulam - Kaloor,
he would have been automatically included and the same would have
been converted into a regular permit. Moreover, we also find that the
appellant-K.S.R.T.C, having acquiesced to the running of the 1st
respondent in the sector without any dispute from 2006 onwards, had
no grievance whatsoever until the promulgation of Ext.P4 scheme.
Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the challenge raised by the
appellant-K.S.R.T.C is thoroughly misconceived and unsustainable.
Accordingly, W.A.No.1245/2023 fails and the same is dismissed.
8. Coming to W.A.No.819/2023, what is contended before us
by the appellant-K.S.R.T.C is that the learned Single Judge could not
have issued the direction to renew the temporary permit. In the
peculiar facts of the present case, we hasten to note that because of the
2025:KER:19780
WAs.1245 & 819/2023
challenge raised by the K.S.R.T.C against the directions issued by the
Appellate Tribunal directing the RTA to grant regular permit, the
appellant was forced to approach this Court and the challenge had to
be decided and in the meantime, when the temporary permit of the 1st
respondent was getting expired, the writ of mandamus was sought for.
We find that no reason can be attributed as to why the 1st respondent
was not entitled to seek renewal of the existing temporary permit. Non-
grant of the relief would certainly tantamount to a violation of the right
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in issuing
the direction in the peculiar facts of the case and, therefore, we see no
reason as to why we should interfere with the aforesaid direction.
Hence, W.A.No.819/2023 also lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
jg
