[Cites 44, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
The Kerala State Road Transport ... vs Shaji Mathew on 16 January, 2026
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 26th POUSHA, 1947
WA NO.2342 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.08.2025 IN WP(C)NO.39608 OF 2024 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING
DIRECTOR, PIN - 695023
BY ADV SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:
1 M.P.JOY, AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. PAULOSE, MANGALATH PUTHEN PURAYIL HOUSE,
KOORACHUND POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673527
2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, PIN - 676001
3 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676001
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 2
ADV. SRI. O.D. SIVADAS FOR R1
SRI.P. SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER FOR
R2 & R3
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.2390/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
16.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 26th POUSHA, 1947
WA NO. 2765 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.08.2025 IN WP(C) NO.39608 OF 2024
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, PIN - 676001
2 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676001
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT:
1 M.P.JOY, S/O. PAULOSE, MANGALATH PUTHEN PURAYIL
HOUSE, KOORACHUND POST,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673527
2 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING
DIRECTOR, PIN - 695023
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 4
ADV. SRI. O.D. SIVADAS FOR R1
BY ADV SRI.P.C. CHACKO (PARATHANAM) FOR R2
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.2390/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
16.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 26th POUSHA, 1947
WA NO. 2348 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.08.2025 IN WP(C)NO.40312 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT
BHAVAN, FORT PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
PIN - 695023
BY ADV SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 SURESH KUMAR.V.K,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, VATTAPPAAMBIL HOUSE,
DESOM.P.O., ALUVA. ERNKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
683516
2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICER, VATAKARA., PIN - 673101
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 6
3 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, VATAKARA, PIN - 673101
ADV. SRI. O.D. SIVADAS FOR R1
SRI.P. SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER FOR
R2 & R3
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.2390 OF 2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
16.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 26th POUSHA, 1947
WA NO. 2391 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.08.2025 IN WP(C)NO.20813 OF 2025 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT
BHAVAN, FORT PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
BY ADV SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:
1 THOMAS GEORGE, AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. GEORGE THOMAS, KONDODICKAL HOUSE,
THOTTAKKD.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686539
2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
3 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION.P.O.,
PAINAVU, IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
ADV. SRI. O.D. SIVADAS FOR R1
SRI.P. SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER FOR
R2 & R3
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.2390/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
16.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 26th POUSHA, 1947
WA NO.2392 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.08.2025 IN WP(C)NO.24665 OF 2025 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695014
BY ADV SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 4:
1 ABDULLAKUTTY, AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. KUNHIMOIDU, MANGADAN HOUSE, CHERUSHOLA,
PLATHARA, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676503
2 MOOSA.P.K., AGED 68 YEARS
S/O KOMU HAJI,PARUTHIKUNNAN HOUSE,
KARIMOOCHIKKAL, KUTTIPALA.P.O, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676501
3 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 9
4 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, TRANSPORT TOWER,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
5 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, PIN - 676001
6 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL,
TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 676001
ADV. SRI. O.D. SIVADAS FOR R1 & R2
SRI.P. SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER FOR
R3 TO R6
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.2390/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
16.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 26th POUSHA, 1947
WA NO.2404 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.08.2025 IN WP(C)NO.21756 OF 2025 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT
BHAVAN, FORT P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695023
BY ADV SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:
1 SABEENA TOMY, AGED 53 YEARS
W/O. TOMY MATHEW, CHITTAPANATTU HOUSE,
MUNDAKAYAM.P.O., MUNDAKAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686513
2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
3 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION.P.O.,
PAINAVU, IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 11
ADV. SRI. O.D. SIVADAS FOR R1
SRI.P. SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER FOR
R2 & R3
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.2390/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
16.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 26th POUSHA, 1947
WA NO. 2413 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.08.2025 IN WP(C) NO.22595 OF 2025
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY ADV SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 BINU PAULOSE, AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. P.K. PAULOSE (LATE), PEECHAKKARA HOUSE,
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
2 THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL
STATION, PAINAVU, IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 13
4 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI, CIVIL
STATION, PAINAVU, IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
ADV. SRI. P. DEEPAK, SR. ADV. FOR R1
SRI.P. SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER FOR
R2 TO R4
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.2390/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
16.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 26th POUSHA, 1947
W.A.No.2445 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.08.2025 IN WP(C)NO.21280 OF 2025 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY ADV SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 SUBIN JACOB, AGED 51 YEARS
S/O JACOB JOSE, KUZHIKKATTU HOUSE, THADIYANPADU
P.O., IDUKKI, PIN - 685602
2 THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
COLLECTORATE P.O., IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 15
4 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI,
COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYM, PIN - 685603
ADV. SRI. P. DEEPAK, SR. ADV. FOR R1
SRI.P. SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER FOR
R2 TO R4
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.2390/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
16.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 26th POUSHA, 1947
WA NO. 2464 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.08.2025 IN WP(C) NO.19633 OF 2025
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695014
BY ADV SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:
1 SHAJI MATHEW, AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. MATHEW, CHITTAPPANATTU HOUSE,
CHOTTANIKARA.P.O. ERUVELY, KAYANANNOOR,
THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682312
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, TRANSPORT TOWER,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 17
4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN -
685603
5 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION.P.O.,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
ADV. SRI. O.D. SIVADAS FOR R1
SRI.P. SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER FOR R2 TO
R5
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.2390/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
16.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 26th POUSHA, 1947
WA NO. 2761 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.08.2025 IN WP(C) NO.19633 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, TRANSPORT TOWER,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN -
685603
4 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION.P.O.,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 19
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 5TH RESPONDENT:
1 SHAJI MATHEW,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. MATHEW, CHITTAPPANATTU HOUSE,
CHOTTANIKARA.P.O. ERUVELY, KAYANANNOOR,
THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682312
2 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695014
ADV. SRI. O.D. SIVADAS FOR R1
SRI.P.C. CHACKO FOR R2
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.2390/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
16.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 26th POUSHA, 1947
WA NO. 2390 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.08.2025 IN WP(C) NO.24613 OF 2025
OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/7TH RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695014
BY ADV SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6:
1 BABY JOSEPH, AGED 64 YEARS
S/O JOSEPH, VARALIKARA HOUSE, KOODAPPULAM P.O,
RAMAPURAM, PALA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686576
2 ABRAHAM.T., AGED 74 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH, THANNIYAPLACAL HOUSE, ANICKADU.P.O.,
PALLIKKATHODU, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 689503
3 JUSTIN, AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. GEORGE, KATTOM PARAMBIL, KONGNDOOR.P.O.,
AYARKUNNAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686122
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 21
4 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
5 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, TRANSPORT TOWER,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
6 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PIN - 670002
7 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION,
KANNUR, PIN - 670002
8 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN -
686001
9 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL RANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 680001
ADV. SRI. O.D. SIVADAS FOR R1 TO R3
SRI.P. SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPL. GOVT. PLEADER FOR R4 TO R9
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.2391/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
16.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 26th POUSHA, 1947
WA NO. 2798 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.08.2025 IN WP(C) NO.24613 OF 2025
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, TRANSPORT TOWER,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN -
670002
4 THE SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION,
KANNUR, PIN - 670002
5 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PIN - 686001
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 23
6 THE SECRETARY
REGIONAL RANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND 7TH RESPONDENT:
1 BABY JOSEPH, AGED 64 YEARS
S/O JOSEPH, VARALIKARA HOUSE, KOODAPPULAM P.O,
RAMAPURAM, PALA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686576
2 ABRAHAM.T., AGED 74 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH, THANNIYAPLACAL HOUSE, ANICKADU.P.O.,
PALLIKKATHODU, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 689503
3 JUSTIN, AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. GEORGE, KATTOM PARAMBIL, KONGNDOOR.P.O.,
AYARKUNNAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686122
4 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN -
695014
ADV. SRI. O.D. SIVADAS FOR R1 TO R3
BY ADV SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM) FOR R4
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.2390/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
16.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 24
"C.R"
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
These writ appeals filed by the Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation (KSRTC)/State of Kerala and its officials arise out of a
common judgment dated 01.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge
in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024 and connected matters.
2. W.A.No.2342 of 2025 filed by KSRTC arises out of the
judgment dated 01.08.2025 in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024, W.A.No.
2348 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.40312 of
2024, W.A.No.2391 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in
W.P.(C)No.20813 of 2025, W.A.No.2391 of 2025 arises out of the
judgment in W.P.(C)No.24665 of 2025, W.A.No.2404 of 2025
arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.21756 of 2025,
W.A.No.2413 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in
W.P.(C)No.22595 of 2025, W.A.No.2445 of 2025 arises out of the
judgment in W.P.(C)No.21280 of 2025, W.A.No.2464 of 2025
arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.19633 of 2025 and
W.A.No.2390 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in
W.P.(C)No.24613 of 2025. W.A.No.2761 of 2025 filed by the State
of Kerala and its officials arises out of the judgment in
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 25
W.P.(C)No.19633 of 2025, W.A.No.2765 of 2025 arises out of the
judgment in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2025 and W.A.No.2798 of 2025
arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.24613 of 2025.
3. The 1st respondent in W.A.No.2342 of 2025, who was
holding Ext.P1 stage carriage permit on the route Kozhikode-
Ernakulam South as a Superfast service, in respect of stage
carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-56/L-2891, which was valid from
19.06.2011 till 18.06.2016, filed W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024,
invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1 st
respondent Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Malappuram, to
consider the applications for renewal of permit made by the
petitioner on the route Kozhikode-Ernakulam as Limited Stop
Ordinary Service (LSOS), untrammelled by the scheme published
vide Ext.P6 notification, i.e., G.O.(P)No.13/2023/Trans. dated
03.05.2023, and grant renewal of permit as LSOS, without
insisting the curtailment of route length to less than 140
kilometers; a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent
Secretary, RTA, Malappuram, to consider Ext.P7 application dated
20.05.2024 for temporary permit on the route Kozhikode-
2026:KER:3756
Ernakulam, as LSOS, untrammelled by Ext.P6 scheme published
on 03.05.2023, and grant and issue temporary permit to the
petitioner, without insisting curtailment of route length to less than
140 kilometers, till the disposal of the application for renewal of
permit, i.e., Ext.P1 stage carriage permit. The document marked
as Ext.P2 is an application dated 06.02.2016 made by the
petitioner for renewal of Ext.P1 stage carriage permit, for a period
of five years, from 19.06.2016 till 18.06.2021. The petitioner
again filed Ext.P3 application dated 17.06.2021, for renewal of the
stage carriage permit from 19.06.2021, on the ground that
renewal of Ext.P1 permit from 19.06.2016 for five years is pending
in Ext.P2 application dated 06.02.2016. In W.P.(C)No.39608 of
2024, the 3rd respondent KSRTC filed a counter affidavit dated
15.11.2024, opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith
Exts.R3(a) to R3(e) documents. Along with I.A.No.1 of 2025,
KSRTC produced Ext.R3(f) judgment dated 24.09.2020 in
W.A.No.1054 of 2020. RTA, Malappuram and its Secretary have
filed W.A.No.2765 of 2025 challenging the judgment dated
01.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.39608 of
2024.
2026:KER:3756
3.1. The 1st respondent in W.A.No.2348 of 2025, who was
holding Ext.P1 stage carriage permit on the route Ernakulam
South-Thalasserry as Limited Stop Fast Passenger (LSFP), in
respect of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-41/L-3487, which was
valid from 31.12.2009 till 30.12.2014, filed W.P.(C)No.40312 of
2024, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1 st
respondent RTA, Vatakara, to consider the applications for renewal
of permit made by the petitioner on the route Ernakulam South-
Thalasserry as LSOS, untrammelled by the scheme published vide
Ext.P4 notification, i.e., G.O.(P)No.13/2023/Trans. dated
03.05.2023, and grant renewal of permit as LSOS, without
insisting the curtailment of route length to less than 140
kilometers; a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent
Secretary, RTA, Vatakara, to consider Ext.P5 application dated
06.11.2024 for temporary permit on the route Ernakulam South-
Thalasserry, as LSOS, untrammelled by Ext.P4 scheme published
on 03.05.2023, and grant and issue temporary permit to the
petitioner, without insisting curtailment of route length to less than
140 kilometers, till the disposal of the application for renewal of
permit, i.e., Ext.P1 stage carriage permit. In W.P.(C)No.40312 of
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 28
2024 the 3rd respondent KSRTC has filed a counter affidavit dated
15.11.2024, opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith
Exts.R3(a) to R3(e) documents, raising contentions similar to
those raised in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C)No.39608 of
2024.
3.2. The 1st respondent in W.A.No.2391 of 2025, who was
holding a stage carriage permit on the route Kuzhitholu-Kottayam,
as LSOS in respect of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-33/L-
3446, which was valid till 22.07.2018 (going by the averments in
the writ petition), filed W.P.(C)No.20813 of 2025, seeking a writ of
mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Secretary, RTA,
Idukki, to entertain Ext.P3 application dated 03.04.2025 for
temporary permit in respect of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-
33/L-3446 on the route Kuzhitholu-Kottayam as LSOS, till orders
are passed by the 2nd respondent Secretary, RTA, Idukki, in the
application for renewal of permit, without insisting the curtailment
of the route length to less than 140 kilometers. In the said writ
petition, the 3rd respondent KSRTC has filed a counter affidavit
dated 18.06.2025, opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ
2026:KER:3756
petition, raising contentions similar to those taken in the counter
affidavit filed in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024.
3.3. The 1st respondent in W.A.No.2392 of 2025, who was
holding a stage carriage permit on the route Ernakulam South-
Kozhikode, as LSOS in respect of stage carriage bearing
Reg.No.KL-10/AE-5140 and the 2nd respondent in that writ appeal,
who was holding a stage carriage permit on the route Ernakulam
South-Kozhikode, as LSOS in respect of stage carriage bearing
Reg.No.KL-65/B-1677 (going by the averments in the writ
petition), filed W.P.(C)No.24665 of 2025, seeking a writ of
mandamus commanding the 4th respondent Secretary, RTA,
Malappuram, to consider Exts.P4 and P5 applications for
temporary permit in respect of the said stage carriages, on the
route Ernakulam South-Kozhikode as LSOS, till orders are passed
in the applications for renewal of permit. The petitioners have also
sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent
RTA, Malappuram, to grant renewal of permit in respect of stage
carriages bearing Reg.Nos.KL-10/AE-5140 and KL-65/B-1677 on
the route Ernakulam South-Kozhikode, as LSOS, without insisting
on the curtailment of the route length to less than 140 kilometers.
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 30
3.4. The 1st respondent in W.A.No.2404 of 2025, who was
holding Ext.P1 stage carriage permit on the route Kumily-
Kottayam in respect of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-34/B-
5067 as Limited Stop Ordinary Service (LSOS), which was valid
from 22.05.2010 till 21.05.2015, filed W.P.(C)No.21756 of 2025,
seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent
Secretary, RTA, Idukki, to entertain Ext.P4 application dated
03.04.2025 for temporary permit in respect of stage carriage
bearing Reg.No.KL-33/L-3425 and grant and issue the temporary
permit on the route Kumily-Kottayam as LSOS, without insisting
the curtailment of the route length to less than 140 kilometers.
3.5. The 1st respondent in W.A.No.2413 of 2025, who is the
son and legal heir of late P.K. Poulose, Managing Partner of PPK
Sons, Kothamangalam, who was holding Ext.P1 stage carriage
permit on the route Aluva-Kanthaloor, an inter-regional route
having a route length of 170 kilometers, which was valid from
18.10.1984 till 17.10.1987, which was later renewed up to
17.10.1990, has filed W.P.(C)No.22595 of 2025, seeking a writ of
mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent RTA, Idukki, to
consider and pass final orders on the application for renewal of
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 31
Ext.P1 stage carriage permit, as expeditiously as possible, at any
rate, within the time limit to be stipulated by this Court, taking
into account the judgment of this Court dated 17.03.2025 in
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and the law laid down in Kerala State Road
Transport Corporation v. Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617];
and a declaration that the petitioner as the holder of Ext.P1 saved
permit is entitled to renewal of the same without any distance
embargo, in the light of the law laid down in Saju Varkey [2018
(4) KHC 617]. In W.P.(C)No.22595 of 2025 the learned Special
Government Pleader has filed a counter affidavit dated 04.07.2025
on behalf of the 3rd respondent Regional Transport Authority,
opposing the reliefs sought for, raising contentions similar to those
raised in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of KSRTC in
W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024.
3.6. The 1st respondent in W.A.No.2445 of 2025, who was
holding Ext.P1 stage carriage permit on the route Ernakulam-
Kumily having a route length of 180 kilometers, which was valid
from 11.12.2017 to 10.12.2022, has filed W.P.(C)No.21280 of
2025, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd
respondent RTA, Idukki, to consider and pass final orders on the
2026:KER:3756
application for renewal of Ext.P1 stage carriage permit, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a time limit to be
specified by this Court, taking into account Ext.P8 judgment dated
17.03.2025 in W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and connected cases and the
law laid down in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617]; a writ of
mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent Secretary, RTA,
Idukki, to forthwith consider and pass final orders on Ext.P9
application dated 08.11.2024 for temporary permit filed under
Section 87(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, issuing temporary
permit pending decision on the applications for renewal of Ext.P1
regular permit, taking into account Ext.P8 judgment in
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and connected cases and the law laid down
in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617]; a declaration that the
petitioner as the holder of Ext.P1 saved permit is entitled to
renewal of the same without any distance embargo, in the light of
the law laid down in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617]. The 4th
respondent KSRTC has filed a counter affidavit dated 18.06.2025
in W.P.(C)No.21280 of 2025, opposing the reliefs sought for,
producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to R4(g) documents, raising
2026:KER:3756
contentions similar to those raised in the counter affidavit filed in
W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024.
3.7. The 1st respondent in W.A.No.2464 of 2025, who was
holding Ext.P1 stage carriage permit on the route Pooppara-
Konnakkadu as Super Express service, in respect of stage carriage
bearing Reg.No.KL-39/L-8282 with permit No.P.St.6/14/2000,
which was valid from 13.04.2010 till 12.04.2015, and in respect
of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-39/L-8283 with permit
No.P.St.6/9/2000, which was valid from 15.02.2010 till
14.02.2015, filed W.P.(C)No.19633 of 2025, seeking a writ of
mandamus commanding the 4th respondent Secretary, RTA,
Idukki, to entertain Exts.P27 and P28 applications dated
03.04.2025 for temporary permits in respect of stage carriage
bearing Reg.Nos.KL-39/L-8282 and KL-39/L-8283 and grant
temporary permit on the route Pooppara-Konnakadu, as LSOS, till
orders are passed by the 3rd respondent RTA, Idukki, in the
applications for renewal of the stage carriage permit, without
insisting the curtailment of the route length to less than 140
kilometers; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd
respondent RTA, to consider Exts.P25 and P26 applications for
2026:KER:3756
renewal of permit in respect of stage carriages bearing
Reg.Nos.KL-39/L-8282 and KL-39/L-8283 on the route Pooppara-
Konnakkadu as LSOS and grant and issue the same without
insisting the curtailment of the route length to less than 140
kilometers, till the disposal of the applications for renewal of
permit. On behalf of the 5th respondent KSRTC a counter affidavit
dated 06.06.2025 was filed in W.P.(C)No.19633 of 2025, opposing
the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Ext.R5(a) document.
The 3rd respondent Regional Transport Authority has also filed a
counter affidavit dated 02.07.2025, opposing the reliefs sought
for. The State of Kerala and the official respondents in
W.P.(C)No.19633 of 2025 have filed W.A.No.2761 of 2025,
challenging the judgment dated 01.08.2025 of the learned Single
Judge in that writ petition.
3.8. The 1st respondent in W.A.No.2390 of 2025, who was
holding Ext.P1 stage carriage permit on the route
Chandanakkampara-Kottayam in respect of stage carriage bearing
Reg.No.KL-67/A-2529, as Super-Fast service, which was valid
from 27.10.2012 to 26.10.2017 and the 2nd and 3rd respondents,
who are stage carriage operators conducting service with stage
2026:KER:3756
carriages bearing Reg.Nos.KL-05/AV-1975 and KL-67/B-8898 on
the route Pathanamthitta-Padichira on the strength of stage
carriage permits issued by the 6th respondent Secretary, RTA,
Kottayam (going by the averments in the writ petition), have filed
W.P.(C)No.24613 of 2025, seeking a writ of mandamus
commanding the 4th respondent Secretary, RTA, to consider Ext.P6
application dated 08.11.2024 made by the 1st petitioner for
temporary permit in respect of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-
67/B-5299 on the route Chandanamkkampara-Kottayam and the
6th respondent Secretary, RTA, Kottayam to consider Exts.P7 and
P8 applications dated 04.04.2025 for temporary permits to stage
carriages bearing Reg.Nos.KL-05/AV-1975 and KL-67/B-8898
made by the 2nd and 3rd petitioners on the route Pathanamthitta-
Padichira as LSOS and grant temporary permit as sought for, till
orders are passed in the application for renewal of permit; and a
writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent RTA to grant
renewal of permit in respect of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-
67/B-5299 on the route Chandanamkkampara-Kottayam and the
5th respondent RTA, Kottayam to grant renewal of permit in
respect of stage carriages bearing Reg.Nos.KL-05/AV-1975 and
2026:KER:3756
KL-67/B-8898 made by the 2nd and 3rd petitioners on the route
Pathanamthitta-Padichira as LSOS, without insisting on
curtailment of the route length to less than 140 kilometers. The
State of Kerala and the official respondents have filed
W.A.No.2798 of 2025 challenging the judgment dated 01.08.2025
of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.24613 of 2025.
4. After considering the rival contentions the learned
Single Judge, by a common judgment dated 01.08.2025 allowed
W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024 and connected matters ordering that,
until a new scheme is enacted as mandated by law, the final and
binding declaration in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617] will
continue to operate, preventing the denial of renewal of
applications based on distance restrictions. Resultantly, the
Regional Transport Authorities and their officers are directed to
consider the applications for temporary permit made by the
petitioners, within three weeks from the date of receiving a copy
of the judgment, and to consider the applications for renewal of
regular permits, within two months thereafter, without any
distance restriction, in accordance with law. Paragraphs 21 to 23
2026:KER:3756
and also the last paragraph of the impugned judgment dated
01.08.2025 read thus;
"21. After examining the rival contentions and the record, it
is evident that the petitioners, the respondent Government,
and KSRTC understood the judgment in Saju Varkey (supra)
as affirming that holders of the saved permits could operate
without distance restrictions, as clearly stated therein,
which was again clarified by this Court's subsequent
judgment in W.P.(C)No.14151 of 2020, which recorded the
Government's position. To circumvent this legal declaration,
a new scheme was introduced on 03.05.2023, restricting
saved permit holders to operate within 140 km. This led to
the withdrawal of appeals by KSRTC and the State against
the earlier judgment.
22. Recognising that the Government and KSRTC
understood the significance of this declaration, the 2023
scheme was evidently aimed at overriding it. As held in Desh
Bandhu Gupta and Co. v. Delhi Stock Exchange Association
Ltd. [(1979) 4 SCC 565], the principle of contemporanea
expositio (interpreting a statute or any other document by
reference to the exposition it has received from
contemporary authority) can be invoked when
contemporaneous construction placed by administrative or
executive officers charged with executing a statute,
although not controlling, is nevertheless entitled to
considerable weight; it is highly persuasive.
23. Regarding the contention that only clause 4 of the 2017
scheme was considered in Saju Varkey (supra), the same is
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 38
equally unacceptable, as clauses 4 and 5(a) make no
substantive difference. This view also contradicts the
declaration in Saju Varkey (supra). Consequently, the
argument of the respondents that even saved permit
holders are subject to a distance limit is untenable. Since
the 2023 scheme was quashed, the declaration in Saju
Varkey (supra) remains effective and applicable. The
quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position
as such stood on the date of the passing of the order which
has been quashed.
For these reasons, the petitioners are entitled to succeed.
Until a new scheme is enacted as mandated by law, the final
and binding declaration in Saju Varkey (supra) will continue
to operate, preventing the denial of renewal applications
based on distance restrictions. Resultantly, the Regional
Transport Authorities and their officers are directed to
consider the petitioners' applications for temporary permit
within three weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment and
the applications for renewal of the regular permit within two
months thereafter, without any distance restriction, in
accordance with law.
The writ petitions are allowed as above.'
5. Challenging the common judgment dated 01.08.2025
of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024 and
connected matters, the KSRTC/State and its officials are before
this Court in these writ appeals. The delay in filing the writ appeals
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 39
was condoned by the order passed in the respective C.M.
Applications.
6. Heard detailed arguments of the learned Standing
Counsel for KSRTC, the learned Special Government Pleader for
the State and its officials, the learned Senior Counsel for the 1 st
respondent in W.A.Nos.2413 of 2025 and 2445 of 2025 and also
the learned counsel for the party respondents in the connected
writ appeals.
7. The contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel
for KSRTC and the learned Special Government Pleader for the
State and its officials is that the writ petitioners are not entitled to
operate more than 140 kilometers as LSOS, because the
Government notified the Super Class Scheme vide G.O.(P)No.
73/2013/Trans. dated 16.07.2013 [Ext.R3(a) in W.P.(C)No.39608
of 2024], under Section 100(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. As per
Clause (18) of the said Scheme, the right to operate any class of
service other than ordinary service in the State of Kerala and to
increase the trips shall be reserved exclusively with KSRTC. As per
Clause (3), the existing permits in the private sector, as on
16.07.2013, shall be allowed to continue till the date of expiry of
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 40
the respective permits. Thereafter, no permits shall be renewed,
and no permit, regular or temporary, shall be issued afresh.
8. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Senior
Counsel for the 1st respondent in W.A.Nos.2413 of 2025 and 2445
of 2025, and that of the learned counsel for the party
respondent(s) in the connected writ appeals, is that Ext.R3(a)
scheme in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024, notified vide
G.O.(P)No.73/2013/Trans. dated 16.07.2013 is 'Service Centric
Scheme', whereby the right to operate all classes of services, other
than ordinary service, in respect of stage carriages in the State of
Kerala, was given exclusively to KSRTC, as noticed by the Division
Bench in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617]. In the light of the
law laid down by the Division Bench in the said decision, 'saved
permit' holders, who were granted permits up to 14.07.2009, are
entitled to operate their service, both as ordinary service and
LSOS, without any distance restriction. The said position was
clarified by the learned Single Judge in the subsequent judgment
dated 12.01.2022 in W.P.(C)No.11074 of 2020 and connected
matters.
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 41
9. Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, deals with
special provisions relating to State Transport Undertakings. As per
Section 97 of the Act, in Chapter VI, unless the context otherwise
requires, 'road transport service' means a service of motor
vehicles carrying passengers or goods or both by road for hire or
reward. The said provision corresponds to Section 68-A of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939). As per Section 98 of
the Act, the provisions of Chapter VI and the rules and orders
made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter V or in any other law
for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by
virtue of any such law. The said provision corresponds to Section
68-B of Act IV of 1939.
10. Section 99 of the Act deals with the preparation and
publication of a proposal requiring road transport service of a State
Transport Undertaking. As per sub-section (1) of Section 99,
where any State Government is of opinion that for the purpose of
providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-
ordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public
interest that road transport services in general or any particular
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 42
class of such service in relation to any area or route or portion
thereof should be run and operated by the State Transport
Undertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of
other persons or otherwise, the State Government may formulate
a proposal regarding a scheme giving particulars of the nature of
the services proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed
to be covered and other relevant particulars respecting thereto
and shall publish such proposal in the official gazette of the State
formulating such proposal and in not less than one newspaper in
the regional language circulating in the area or route proposed to
be covered by such scheme and also in such other manner as the
State Government formulating such proposal deem fit. As per sub-
section (2) of Section 99, notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (1), when a proposal is published under that sub-
section, then from the date of publication of such proposal, no
permit shall be granted to any person, except a temporary permit
during the pendency of the proposal and such temporary permit
shall be valid only for a period of one year from the date of its
issue or till the date of final publication of the scheme under
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 43
Section 100, whichever is earlier. The said provision corresponds
to Section 68-C of Act IV of 1939.
11. Section 100 of the Act deals with the objection to the
proposal. As per sub-section (1) of section 100, on the publication
of any proposal regarding a scheme in the official gazette and in
not less than one newspaper in the regional language circulating
in the area or route which is to be covered by such proposal any
person may, within thirty days from the date of its publication in
the official gazette, file objections to it before the State
Government. As per sub-section (2) of Section 100, the State
Government may, after considering the objections and after giving
an opportunity to the objector or his representatives and the
representatives of the State Transport Undertaking to be heard in
the matter, if they so desire, approve or modify such proposal. As
per sub-section (3) of Section 100, the scheme relating to the
proposal as approved or modified under sub-section (2) shall then
be published in the official gazette by the State Government
making such scheme and in not less than one newspaper in the
regional language circulating in the area or route covered by such
scheme and the same shall thereupon become final on the date of
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 44
its publication in the official gazette and shall be called the
approved scheme and the area or route to which it relates shall be
called the notified area or notified route. As per the proviso to sub-
section (3) of Section 100, no such scheme which relates to any
inter-state route shall be deemed to be an approved scheme
unless it has the previous approval of the Central Government. As
per sub-section (4) of Section 100, notwithstanding anything
contained in this section, where a scheme is not published as an
approved scheme under sub-section (3) in the official gazette
within a period of one year from the date of publication of the
proposal regarding the scheme in the official gazette under sub-
section (1), the proposal shall be deemed to have lapsed. As per
the Explanation to sub-section (4) of Section 100, in computing
the period of one year referred to in this sub-section, any period
or periods during which the publication of the approved scheme
under sub-section (3) was held up on account of any stay or
injunction by the order of any court shall be excluded. Section 100
of the Act corresponds to Section 68-D of Act IV of 1939.
12. Section 101 of the Act deals with the operation of
additional services by State Transport Undertaking in certain
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 45
circumstances. As per Section 101, notwithstanding anything
contained in Section 87, a State Transport Undertaking may, in the
public interest, operate additional services for the conveyance of
passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and
religious gatherings. As per the proviso to Section 101, the State
Transport Undertaking shall inform about the operation of such
additional services to the concerned Transport Authority without
delay.
13. Section 102 of the Act deals with the cancellation or
modification of a scheme. As per sub-section (1) of Section 102,
the State Government may, at any time, if it considers necessary,
in the public interest so to do, modify any approved scheme after
giving (i) the State Transport Undertaking; and (ii) any other
person who, in the opinion of the State Government, is likely to
be affected by the proposed modification, an opportunity of being
heard in respect of the proposed modification. As per sub-section
(2) of Section 102, the State Government shall publish any
modification proposed under sub-section (1) in the official gazette
and in one of the newspapers in the regional languages circulating
in the area in which it is proposed to be covered by such
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 46
modification, together with the date, not being less than thirty
days from such publication in the official gazette, and the time and
place at which any representation received in this behalf will be
heard by the State Government. The said provision corresponds
to Section 68-E of Act IV of 1939.
14. Section 103 of the Act deals with the issue of permits
to State Transport Undertakings. As per sub-section (1) of Section
103, where, in pursuance of an approved scheme, any State
Transport Undertaking applies in such manner as may be
prescribed by the State Government in this behalf for a stage
carriage permit or a goods carriage permit or a contract carriage
permit in respect of a notified area or notified route, the State
Transport Authority in any case where the said area or route lies
in more than one region and the Regional Transport Authority in
any other case shall issue such permit to the State Transport
Undertaking, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained
in Chapter V. As per sub-section (2) of Section 103, for the
purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme in respect of a
notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority or, as
the case may be, the Regional Transport Authority concerned may,
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 47
by order, (a) refuse to entertain any application for the grant or
renewal of any other permit or reject any such application as may
be pending; (b) cancel any existing permit; (c) modify the terms
of any existing permit so as to (i) render the permit ineffective
beyond a specified date; (ii) reduce the number of vehicles
authorised to be used under the permit; (iii) curtail the area or
route covered by the permit insofar as such permit relates to the
notified area or notified route. As per sub-section (3) of Section
103, for the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no appeal
shall lie against any action taken or order passed by the State
Transport Authority or any Regional Transport Authority under
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2).
15. Section 104 of the Act deals with the restriction on
grant of permits in respect of notified area or notified route. As
per Section 104, where a scheme has been published under sub-
section (3) of Section 100 in respect of any notified area or notified
route, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport
Authority, as the case may be, shall not grant any permit except
in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. As per the
proviso to Section 104, where no application for a permit has been
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 48
made by the State Transport Undertaking in respect of any notified
area or notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme, the
State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as
the case may be, may grant temporary permits to any person in
respect of such notified area or notified route subject to the
condition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue
of a permit to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of the
area or route. The said provision corresponds to Section 68-FF of
Act IV of 1939.
16. Section 107 of the Act deals with the power of State
Government to make rules. As per sub-section (1) of Section 107,
the State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying
into effect the provisions of Chapter VI. As per sub-section (2) of
Section 107, in particular and without prejudice to the generality
of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of
the following matters, namely, (a) the form in which any proposal
regarding a scheme may be published under Section 99; (b) the
manner in which objections may be filed under sub-section (1) of
Section 100; (c) the manner in which objections may be
considered and disposed of under sub-section (2) of Section 100;
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 49
(d) the form in which any approved scheme may be published
under sub-section (3) of Section 100; (e) the manner in which
application under sub-section (1) of Section 103 may be made;
(f) the period within which the owner may claim any article found
left in any transport vehicle under Section 106 and the manner of
sale of such article; (g) the manner of service of orders under this
Chapter; (h) any other matter which has to be, or may be,
prescribed. The said provision corresponds to Section 68-I of Act
IV of 1939.
17. In G.T. Venkataswamy Reddy v. State Transport
Authority [(2016) 8 SCC 402] the question referred for
consideration by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court was
whether on publication of an approved scheme under the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939), the
number of trips of the vehicles of the existing operations can be
increased [both by number of trips and vehicles] by granting
variation of a permit even when the existing operators are allowed
to carry on their business as on the date of the publication of the
scheme. After a detailed reference to Section 57(8) under Chapter
IV of Act IV of 1939 and Sections 68-B, 68-C, 68-D, 68-E, 68-F(1-
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 50
D) and 68-FF under Chapter V of Act IV of 1939, the Constitution
Bench held that Chapter IV-A of Act IV of 1939 supersedes any
inconsistent provisions in Chapter IV; the policy of the legislature
is clear from Section 68-C that the State Transport Undertaking
may initiate a scheme for the purpose of providing an efficient,
adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport
service to be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking
in relation to any area or route or portion thereof. It may do so if
it is necessary in the public interest; a grant of variation under
Section 57(8) will be as good as a grant of a new permit; Section
57(8) is controlled by Section 68-FF falling under Chapter IV-A, by
virtue of the superseding effect of Section 68-B also falling under
Chapter IV-A; once a scheme formulated under Section 68-D gets
approved under Section 68-D(3) of Chapter IV-A, then all the
permits in the route/area covered by the scheme will get frozen
by virtue of the operation of Section 68-FF; the effect of Section
68-FF can be altered/modified/cancelled only in the manner as
provided for under Section 68-E and in no other manner; by virtue
of the above, either a grant of a new permit or the variation of an
existing permit of private operator cannot be ordered in respect of
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 51
an area or route covered by an approved scheme; the proposition
of law laid down by Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation v. B.A. Jayaram [(1984) Supp. SCC 244]
impliedly stood overruled in Adarsh Travels Bus Service v.
State of U.P. [(1985) 4 SCC 557]; an increase in the number
of trips or vehicles which were being run under the existing
exempted permit under a scheme will amount to grant of a new
permit to operate one more stage carriage which is not permissible
under Section 68-FF; the economy and co-ordination, two of the
factors, which govern the approved scheme, will be seriously
infringed if the variation is to be granted of the existing permit
condition; even if there is an inter-state agreement under Section
63 of the Act for increasing the number of trips, such an
agreement cannot override the provisions of Chapter IV-A by
virtue of Section 68-B of the Act. Section 63 being in Chapter IV
of the Act, the scheme approved under Chapter IV-A will prevail
over it; the approved scheme will exclude the operation of other
stage carriage services on the route/area covered by the scheme,
except those whose names are mentioned in the scheme and to
the extent to which such exception is allowed; the provisions in
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 52
Chapter IV-A are devised to override the provisions of Chapter IV
and it is expressly so enacted, the provisions of Chapter IV-A are
clear and complete regarding the manner and effect of the
'takeover' of the operation of a road transport service by the State
Transport Undertaking in relation to any area or route or portion
thereof - Adarsh Travels Bus Service [(1985) 4 SCC 557]; a
necessary consequence of those provisions is that no private
operator can operate his vehicle on any part or portion of a notified
area or notified route unless authorised so to do by the terms of
the scheme itself. He may not operate on any part or portion of
the notified route or area on the mere ground that the permit, as
originally granted to him, covered the notified route or area -
Adarsh Travels Bus Service [(1985) 4 SCC 557]. Having
regard to the above propositions, the Constitution Bench held that
the decision in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
v. B.A. Jayaram [(1984) Supp. SCC 244] is no longer a good
law and the decision in Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd.
v. M.A. Egappan [(1987) 2 SCC 47] stands approved, which is
in tune with the Constitution Bench decision in Adarsh Travels
Bus Service [(1985) 4 SCC 557] and the observations made in
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 53
R. Raghuram v. P. Jayarama Naidu [(1990) Supp. SCC 361]
stands approved.
17.1. In G.T. Venkataswamy Reddy [(2016) 8 SCC 402]
the Constitution Bench, after a detailed analysis of Section 57
under Chapter IV of Act IV of 1939, analysed other sections, in
the foremost, Section 68-B of the Act, which falls under Chapter
IV-A, and which states that all the provisions contained in Chapter
IV-A shall have supervening effects on any inconsistent provisions
contained in Chapter IV or any other law for the time being in force
or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. Under
Chapter IV, Sections 42 to 68 of the Act have been listed. Insofar
as Section 57(8) of the Act is concerned, the Constitution Bench
noticed that, in the manner in which the said provision has been
interpreted, there will be no inconsistency with any of the
provisions contained in Chapter IV-A. Therefore, Section 57 will
apply in all force even in respect of the prescription contained in
the provisions under Chapter IV-A, viz., Sections 68-A to 68-I of
the Act. The Constitution Bench then proceeded to analyse Section
68-C of the Act, keeping the said broad statutory prescription vis-
à-vis Section 57 of the Act, and found that the formulation of a
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 54
scheme is to be prepared and published by a State Transport
Undertaking in respect of the services to be provided in any area
or route to be covered. The underlying object for such formulation
of a scheme for its preparation and publication must be for
providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-
ordinated road transport service with the paramount consideration
of public interest, and such scheme should be prepared and
published. Section 68-C of the Act, therefore, at the very inception
of the formulation of a scheme by a State Transport Undertaking,
should have the basic consideration of efficient, adequate,
economical and properly co-ordinated transport service in the
public interest. Once such a scheme is formulated with the above
avowed objects in mind and is notified under Section 68-D, on the
publication of such a scheme in the official gazette as well as in
the newspaper in the regional language circulating in the area or
route, which is proposed to be covered by such scheme, every
person who is already providing transport facility in that area or
route or any association representing persons interested in the
provision of road transport facilities recognised by the State as
well as the local authority or police authority, who are also located
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 55
in that area or route, will be entitled to raise their objections or
their representations within 30 days from the date of publication
to the State Government. Under sub-section (2) of Section 68-D
of the Act, the State Government after considering the objections
and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the objector or his
representative as well as the representatives of the State
Transport Undertakings can either approve the scheme as
proposed or give a modified scheme. Under Section 68-E of the
Act, the scheme can be cancelled in the form in which it was
approved or can be modified by following the very same procedure
prescribed under Sections 68-C and 68-D of the Act. However, the
State Transport Undertaking, with the previous approval of the
State Government, can modify the scheme without following the
procedure laid down in Sections 68-C and 68-D of the Act, under
the proviso to Section 68-E. That apart under sub-section (2) of
Section 68-E of the Act, the State Government is fully empowered
to modify any scheme published under sub-section (3) of Section
68-D of the Act after giving an opportunity of hearing to the State
Transport Undertaking, as well as, to any other person who in the
opinion of the State Government is likely to be affected by the
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 56
proposed modification. Once the approved scheme comes into
effect, under Section 68-F of the Act, the State Transport
Undertakings can be issued with the required permits.
18. In Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v.
Rajesh K. [2025 (3) KHC SN 10 : 2025 KHC OnLine 396],
one of the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for
KSRTC and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the State
and its officials was on the locus standi of the private operators-
petitioners to challenge the notification dated 03.05.2023, i.e., the
final scheme published vide G.O.(P)No.13/2023/Trans. dated
03.05.2023, on the ground that their right to operate on long-
distance routes has already been extinguished by the operation of
law as per the Super Class Scheme published vide G.O.(P)No.
73/2013/Tran. dated 16.07.2013 and the Kerala Motor Vehicles
(1st Amendment) Rules, 2017, published vide G.O.(P)No.6/
2017/Trans. dated 15.03.2017. The said contention was left open
to be considered by the appropriate authority at the appropriate
stage, since a reading of the impugned judgment dated
06.11.2024 would not show that such a contention was ever raised
during the course of arguments, before the learned Single Judge.
2026:KER:3756
Moreover, as discernible from the files relating to the notification
dated 03.05.2023, the objections received from the private
operators and others are not confined to those made by long-
distance private operators alone. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the
judgment of the Division Bench read thus;
"12. The learned Senior Counsel for the party respondents
in W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and also the respective counsel for
the party respondents in the connected matters pointed out
that the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for
KSRTC and the learned Senior Government Pleader on the
locus standi of the private operators-writ petitioners to
challenge Ext.P14 notification dated 03.05.2023, on the
ground that their right to operate on long-distance routes
have already been extinguished by the operation of law as
per Ext.R6(a) Super Class Scheme and Ext.R6(b)
notification, whereby sub-clause (oa) in Rule 2 of the said
Rules was re-lettered as sub-clause (ob) and before sub-
clause (ob) as so re-lettered, sub-clause (oa) as per the said
amendment was inserted, was never raised before the
learned Single Judge. In response to the above argument,
the learned Senior Counsel for KSRTC and also the learned
Special Government Pleader would point out the specific
stand taken by KSRTC in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit
dated 09.06.2023, producing therewith a copy of Exts.R6(a)
and R6(b) notifications.
13. On the rival contentions raised at the Bar on the above
aspect, we notice that, as pointed out by the learned Senior
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 58
Counsel for the party respondents in W.A.No.1821 of 2024
and the respective counsel for the party respondents in the
connected matters, a reading of the impugned judgment
dated 06.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge would not
show that such a contention was ever raised during the
course of arguments, before the learned Single Judge.
Moreover, as discernible from the files relating to Ext.P14
notification, which was made available for the perusal of this
Court, the objections received from the private operators
and others, are not confined to those made by long-distance
private operators alone. In such circumstances, we deem it
appropriate to leave open the said contention to be raised
and considered by the appropriate authority at the
appropriate stage."
18.1. In Rajesh K. [2025 (3) KHC SN 10], the Division
Bench found that the notification dated 03.05.2023 is one issued
in total disregard of the requirements of the statutory provisions
contained in the Motor Vehicles Act and also the law laid down in
the decisions on the point. The Division Bench found no reason to
interfere with the judgment dated 06.11.2024 of the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.17469 of 2023 and connected matters,
and the writ appeals were accordingly dismissed. Paragraphs 74,
75 and also the last paragraph of the said decision read thus;
"74. In the instant case, a perusal of the files relating to
Ext.P14 notification makes it explicitly clear that there is
2026:KER:3756
total non-application of mind on the objections raised by the
writ petitioners and others, regarding the proposal made in
Ext.P9 notification for modification of Ext.P2 scheme.
Viewed in the light of the law laid down by the Constitution
Bench in Adarsh Travels Bus Service [(1985) 4 SCC
557], which was followed by the law laid down by another
Constitution Bench in G.T. Venkataswamy Reddy
[(2016) 8 SCC 402], which are rendered in the context of
the provisions under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1939 (Act IV of 1939), which are pari materia to the
provisions contained in Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, and also the law laid down by the Constitution Bench
in H.C. Narayanappa [AIR 1960 SC 1073] the conclusion
is irresistible that Ext.P14 notification is one issued in total
disregard to the requirements of the statutory provisions
referred to hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the
decisions referred to supra. The files relating to Ext.P14
notification would not show that the State Government to
whom the power is delegated acted judicially in modifying
the notified scheme in Ext.P2. The guarantee conferred by
Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with Rule 246 of
the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, upon persons likely to be
affected by the proposal for modification of a notified
scheme, is a guarantee of an opportunity to put forth their
objections and to make representations against the
acceptance of the scheme, can be regarded as a real
opportunity only if in the consideration of the objections
there is a judicial approach.
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 60
75. A decision taken by the State Government, in the
exercise of its powers under Section 102 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, read with the relevant provisions of the
Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, modifying an approved
scheme, can be challenged by an affected private operator,
invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, in the absence of any statutory
remedy. The absence of reasons will make nugatory and
ineffective the exercise of the power of judicial review by
this Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. During the course of arguments, it is
not in dispute that the Government files relating to Ext.P14
notification do not disclose any reason whatsoever for
disposing or rejecting the objections in the representations
made by the private operators and others, made pursuant
to Ext.P9 notification dated 14.09.2020. There is nothing on
record to suggest that due consideration was given to such
objections. It is well settled that the hearing required to be
given is not an empty formality. In such circumstances, we
find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment
dated 06.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(C)No.17469 of 2023 and connected matters.
In the result, these writ appeals fail, and they are
accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs."
19. In the Super Class Scheme notified vide G.O.(P)No.
73/2013/Trans. dated 16.07.2013 [Ext.R3(a) in W.P.(C)No.39608
of 2024], it is stated as follows;
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 61
"SRO No.555/2013:- WHEREAS, the Government of Kerala
is of the opinion that for the purpose of providing an
efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated
passenger road transport service, it is necessary in the
public interest that Fast Passenger services, Super Deluxe
services, Super Express services, Super-Fast services and
Luxury services should be run and operated in the State of
Kerala exclusively by the State Transport Undertaking.
AND WHEREAS, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in its
judgment in W.A.No.1591 of 1997 and connected cases had
struck down the definition of "fleet owner" in clause (eb) of
rule 2 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 on the
ground that it is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution;
AND WHEREAS, in Poulose v. State of Kerala [1997 (2)
ILR 821] the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in its judgment
by the Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice of
Kerala has held that if the number of ordinary services
operated by the private sector is reduced and fare is also
hiked for conversion of ordinary services to fast passenger
service, the common man will be deprived of the benefit that
had accrued to him when the buses were being operated as
ordinary services;
AND WHEREAS, the permits given to run ordinary services
in the private sector are being converted to run and operate
Fast Passenger services, Super Deluxe services, Super
Express services, Super-Fast services and Luxury services
resulting in the reduction in the number of ordinary services,
hike of fares, denial of the benefits, conveniences and
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 62
concessions enjoyed by common man and the students from
the transport system in the State;
AND WHEREAS, the Government consider that it is
necessary to formulate, for public interest, a scheme for the
purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and
properly co-ordinated road transport service by the State
Transport undertaking;
AND WHEREAS, the proposal regarding the scheme for the
purpose was previously published as per Notification No.
5651/B2/09/Tran, dated 2nd August, 2012, in the Kerala
Gazette Extraordinary No.1706 dated the 13th August, 2012
and in Kerala Kaumudi daily dated 28th September, 2012 and
in the Mathrubhumi daily dated 30th September, 2012 for
the areas covered by the scheme as required by section 99
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988);
AND WHEREAS, the State Government, after having
considered the objections received against the draft scheme
and after having heard the objectors and the
representatives of the State Transport Undertaking, and are
satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest to
implement the said scheme;
NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 100 of the Motor Vehicles
Act 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988), the Government of Kerala
hereby approve the following scheme, that the passenger
road transport service as per the particulars thereunder,
should be run and operated by the State Transport
Undertaking:-" (underline supplied)
2026:KER:3756
20. The Super Class Scheme notified vide Ext.R3(a)
notification dated 16.07.2013, provides that the passenger road
transport service as per the particulars thereunder, i.e., Fast
Passenger services, Super Deluxe services, Super Express
services, Super-Fast services and Luxury services shall be run and
operated in the State of Kerala, exclusively by the State Transport
Undertaking, i.e., KSRTC, in the public interest, for the purpose of
providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-
ordinated passenger road transport service.
21. Clauses (1) to (18) of the Super Class Scheme, notified
vide Ext.R3(a) notification dated 16.07.2013, provide for the
proposed route and area of service, its nature and matters relating
to the scheme. Clauses (1) to (3), (5), (6) and (18) of the said
scheme read thus;
(1) Route or routes (with their : All over the State of
important intermediate Kerala.
points) or the area in
relation to which the
scheme is proposed.
(2) Class of service : Fast Passenger services,
(Stage Carriage/Contract Super Fast services, Super
Carriage, Goods Carriage, Express services, Super
Mofussil or City or Town Deluxe services and
services in the case of Stage Luxury services.
Carriage)
(3) Whether the services are to : Yes. The permits issued in
be operated by the State the private sector on or
Transport Undertaking to before the date of this
2026:KER:3756
the exclusion of other notification shall be
persons or otherwise. allowed to continue till the
dates of expiry of the
respective permits.
Thereafter, no permits
shall be renewed and no
permit, regular or
temporary, shall be issued
afresh.
Provided that the
exclusion shall be partial
till the existing Private
Services operating routes
are replaced as provided.
xxx xxx : xxx xxx
(5) The maximum and : As per traffic demand.
minimum number of
vehicles to be operated in
relation to each area or
route by the State Transport
Undertaking.
(6) The maximum and : As per traffic demand.
minimum number of trips to
be provided in relation to
each area or route by the
State Transport Undertaking
in the case of stage
carriages.
xxx xxx : xxx xxx
(18) Any other information the : The right to operate any
State Transport Undertaking class of service other than
may desire to be furnished ordinary service in the
in this connection. State of Kerala and to
increase the trips shall be
reserved exclusively with
State Transport
Undertakings.
(underline supplied)
22. A plain reading of Clauses (1) to (3) of the Super Class
Scheme, notified vide Ext.R3(a) notification dated 16.07.2013,
would make it explicitly clear that the area in relation to which the
scheme is proposed is all over the State of Kerala; the class of
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 65
service is Fast Passenger services, Super-Fast services, Super
Express services, Super Deluxe services and Luxury services; and
the services are to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking
to the exclusion of other persons. As per Clause (3), the permits
issued in the private sector on or before the date of the notification
shall be allowed to continue till the dates of expiry of the
respective permits. Thereafter, no permits shall be renewed, and
no permit, regular or temporary, shall be issued afresh. As per the
proviso to Clause (3), the exclusion shall be partial till the existing
Private Services operating routes are replaced as provided. As per
Clause (18), the right to operate any class of service other than
ordinary service in the State of Kerala and to increase the trips
shall be reserved exclusively with State Transport Undertakings.
23. The definition given to 'Fast Passenger Service', 'Luxury
Service', 'Super Deluxe Service', 'Super Express Service' and
'Super-Fast Service' in clauses (ea), (ka), (ua), (ub) and (uc) of
Rule 2 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, by the Kerala
Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 2013 and also Clauses (1),
(3), (5) and (6) of the Super Class Scheme, notified vide Ext.R3(a)
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 66
notification dated 16.07.2013 were under challenge before this
Court in W.P.(C)No.18813 of 2013 and connected matters.
24. In Kerala State Limited Stop Stage Carriages
Operators Association v. Government of Kerala [2014 (2)
KLT 135], a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the
meaning given to 'Fast Passenger Service' and other higher classes
of vehicles, confining the operation to State Transport Undertaking
alone, in the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 2013, is
ultra vires the Motor Vehicles Act. Paragraphs 41 and 42 of the
said decision read thus;
"41. The issue involved is whether the power under Section
212, read with Section 95 or 96, can be relied upon to
support the amended provision. It is not in dispute that, as
far as Chapter V is concerned, there is no differentiation
between State Transport Undertaking and private stage
carriage operators. The judicial opinion is enormous and it
is clear from the Supreme Court judgments in Sher Singh
Gandhimas Transport [(1984) 1 SCC 107], Ishwar
Singh Bagga [(1987) 1 SCC 101], Mithilesh Garg
[(1992) 1 SCC 168], etc., that the State Transport
Undertaking will have to compete with the private stage
carriage operators in regard to the grant or otherwise of the
permit under Chapter V. Therefore, when a rule is framed
by giving a meaning to 'fast passenger service' and other
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 67
higher class of services, stating that it can be operated only
by State Transport Undertaking, it virtually excludes private
operators from the field. It is not in dispute that while
formulating a scheme, definitely, the State Transport
Undertaking can be given preference under Chapter VI.
42. Section 212 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not give any
separate power to the Government to make rules. Each
chapter contains specific provisions providing the rule-
making power. Section 212 only relates to the procedure for
publication of the rule and the procedure to be followed
while enacting the rule. Therefore, Section 212 will not
enable the Government to make a rule, which is available
only under Chapter IV, V or VI, as the case may be.
Therefore, one has to verify whether such a rule can be
brought into effect. No doubt, Chapter VI only gives power
to the Government to formulate a scheme. As far as stage
carriage operators are concerned, their rights are confined
to Chapter V. The decisions referred above clearly indicate
that, as far as Chapter V is concerned, there cannot be any
differentiation between the stage carriage operators in the
private sector and STU. Viewed in that angle, the source of
power to introduce such a definition excluding private
operators is lacking. In State of T.N. v. Krishnamoorthy
[(2006) 4 SCC 517], the Supreme Court has narrated the
well-recognised grounds for challenging a subordinate
legislation, one of which is failure to conform to the Statute
under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority
conferred by the enabling Act. Hence, I am of the view that
the meaning given to 'Fast Passenger Service' and other
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 68
higher classes of vehicles confining the operation to State
Transport Undertaking alone in the Kerala Motor Vehicles
(Amendment) Rules, 2013, is ultra vires the Motor Vehicles
Act." (underline supplied)
24.1. In Kerala State Limited Stop Stage Carriages
Operators Association [2014 (2) KLT 135], the learned Single
Judge noticed that the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as
evident from various decisions of the Apex Court, clearly indicates
that there is no distinction between private stage carriage
operators and State Transport Undertakings. Whereas, as far as
State Transport Undertakings are concerned, a separate statutory
provision has been made under Chapter VI of the said Act. As per
Section 98 coming under Chapter VI, the provisions of Chapter VI,
the rules and orders made thereunder shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in Chapter V.
Section 99 coming under Chapter VI gives the power to the State
Government to formulate a proposal regarding a scheme, giving
the particulars of the nature of services proposed to be rendered
and other specifications, and to formulate such scheme for the
effective co-ordinated transport service in public interest. Section
100 of the Act relates to the consideration of objections by the
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 69
Government before approving the scheme; Section 102 gives
power to the State Government to modify the scheme at any point
of time after complying with certain requirements; Section 103
relates to the issuance of permits to State Transport Undertakings;
Section 104 relates to the restriction on the grant of permits in
respect of a notified area or notified route; and Section 107 gives
power to the State Government to make rules for the purpose of
carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter VI. After referring to
the above statutory provisions and the law laid down by the Apex
Court in various judgments, the learned Single Judge found that
specific statutory provisions have been enacted under the Motor
Vehicle Act to ensure the formulation of a proper procedure for an
effective and efficient road transport service in the State through
State Transport Undertakings.
24.2. In Kerala State Limited Stop Stage Carriages
Operators Association [2014 (2) KLT 135], the learned Single
Judge held that, under Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is
open for the State Government in public interest to formulate a
scheme for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate,
economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service. Such
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 70
road transport service shall be in general or any particular class of
service. It could be in relation to any area or route or any portion
thereof to be run and operated by the State Transport
Undertaking. The exclusion could be complete or partial. Section
99 of the Act does not impose any restriction on the Government
in undertaking to operate on all routes in the State, to operate
such number of services or trips as per traffic demand. If the
Government decides to exclude private operators from certain
routes or all the routes in the State, insofar as the power is
available with the State Government under Chapter VI, and as
stated above, the scheme cannot be brushed aside. It might be
true that some or all the private stage carriage operators will be
affected by the scheme and the Government intends to control the
entire transportation service by operating through State Transport
Undertaking, but insofar as the statute clearly prescribes the
nature of power and the right of the Government to formulate such
schemes, the scheme thus framed cannot be stated to be
inconsistent with any other provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,
especially in view of Section 98 of the Act. Therefore, the learned
Single Judge concluded that the petitioners have not succeeded in
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 71
challenging the validity of the scheme. Paragraph 43 and also the
last paragraph of the said decision read thus;
"43. As far as the scheme is concerned, it is notified after
complying with the procedure prescribed under Chapter VI
of the Motor Vehicles Act. The contention of the petitioners
is that the scheme is vague and it does not have the required
particulars. Under Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is
open for the State Government in public interest to
formulate a scheme for the purpose of providing an efficient,
adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road
transport service. Such road transport service shall be in
general or any particular class of service. It could be in
relation to any area or route or any portion thereof to be run
and operated by the State Transport Undertaking. The
exclusion could be complete or partial. The scheme should
give particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be
rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered, and
other relevant particulars. Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, therefore, does not impose any restriction on the
Government in undertaking to operate on all routes in the
State, to operate such number of services or trips as per
traffic demand. In Ramesh Chand [(1979) 4 SCC 776],
the Supreme Court held that failure to specify the number
of services would not invalidate the draft scheme or the
approved scheme. True that the said judgment came to be
passed in slightly different factual circumstances, but
insofar as the scheme has been formulated after complying
with the procedural formalities and it being a policy of the
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 72
Government, supported by statutory provisions and also
Article 19(6)(ii) of the Constitution of India, despite the
contentions urged on behalf of the learned counsel for
petitioners, I do not think that this Court can exercise the
power of judicial review to set aside the scheme. The
scheme is a policy of the Government, and it is after notice
to the stakeholders that the scheme has been formulated.
If the Government decides to exclude private operators from
certain routes or all the routes in the State, insofar as the
power is available with the State Government under Chapter
VI, and as stated above, the scheme cannot be brushed
aside. Though it is contended that the scheme is arbitrary
and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as
long as the State Government is vested with the power to
formulate such schemes for an effective, efficient, adequate
co-ordinated transport service in public interest, the fact
that the Government does not have such facilities or the
State Transport Undertaking has no such facilities cannot be
gone into at this stage of the proceedings. Once the scheme
is formulated, it is for the Government and the concerned
State Transport Undertaking to decide regarding the
implementation of the scheme. This Court cannot proceed
on the basis that the Government will not be in a position to
implement the said scheme. It might be true that some or
all the private stage carriage operators will be affected by
the scheme and the Government intends to control the
entire transportation service by operating through State
Transport Undertaking, but insofar as the Statute clearly
prescribes the nature of power and the right of the
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 73
Government to formulate such schemes, the scheme thus
framed cannot be stated to be inconsistent with any other
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act especially in view of
Section 98 of the Act. Hence, I am of the view that the
petitioners have not succeeded in challenging the validity of
the scheme." (underline supplied)
25. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in Kerala
State Limited Stop Stage Carriages Operators Association
[2014 (2) KLT 135] was under challenge in W.A.No.667 of 2014
and connected matters. One set of appeals was by the operators
of private stage carriages. The other set of appeals was by either
the Government of Kerala or KSRTC. The tagged along solitary writ
petition, i.e., W.P.(C)No.24421 of 2014, was filed by a private
operator challenging the constitutional validity of Section 99 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
26. In Mohankumar R. v. Government of Kerala [2016
(2) KLT 963], on the question as to whether the impugned
provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, are ultra vires
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Constitution of India, the
Division Bench noticed that the rule-making power is undoubtedly
available in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The
rules made in exercise of such power are pieces of subordinate
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 74
legislation, which can be subject to judicial scrutiny only on
grounds available on that premise. The Division Bench found that
excessive exercise of rule-making power is neither pleaded nor
established. The rules are not established to be capricious or
arbitrary that no reasonably prudent person or institution
bestowed with subordinate legislative power, particularly in terms
of the rule-making power under the Motor Vehicles Act, would or
ought to have ever made them. Such rules, having been so made,
and because it has not been demonstrated that they violate the
provisions of Part III of the Constitution dealing with fundamental
rights, the Division Bench concluded that it cannot but uphold
those rules as valid. Paragraph 12 of the said decision reads thus;
"12. Issue No. III: Are the impugned provisions of the Rules
ultra vires the 1988 Act and the Constitution? The rule-
making power is undoubtedly available in terms of the
provisions of the 1988 Act. Therefore, rules made in
exercise of such power are pieces of subordinate legislation.
Therefore, they can be subject to judicial scrutiny only on
grounds available on that premise. Excessive exercise of
rule-making power is not pleaded or established. The
impugned rules are not established to be capricious or
arbitrary, that no reasonably prudent person or institution
bestowed with subordinate legislative power, particularly in
terms of the rule-making power under the 1988 Act, would
2026:KER:3756
or ought to have ever made. This is because if such ground
is not established, it would essentially be a matter within
the subordinate legislative domain of the repository of the
power to make those rules; as part of, and in exercise of,
the subordinate legislative power to make rules. Therefore,
such rules having been so made, and because it has not
been demonstrated that they are in violation of the
provisions of Part III of the Constitution dealing with
fundamental rights, we cannot but uphold those rules as
valid. We say this as the primordial principle to confirm the
validity of the impugned Rules. We have seen the reasons
rendered by the learned single Judge to uphold those Rules.
We do not find any way to dissuade ourselves from the
reasoning of the learned single Judge in that regard, either.
In this view of the matter, we find no ground to interfere
with the findings of the learned single Judge upholding the
impugned provisions of the Rules. We confirm them."
(underline supplied)
26.1. In Mohankumar R. v. Government of Kerala [2016
(2) KLT 963], the Division Bench repelled the challenge levied to
Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the writ petition,
observing that legislative competence is not an issue levied to
challenge Section 99 of the Act. The cream and content of the
challenge through the writ petition is nothing but the
emulsification of the personal, private and commercial interest of
the writ petitioner. Equally so, is the interest of those writ
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 76
appellants who have endeavoured to support the writ petition. In
the backdrop of the matter, the larger constitutional perspective
and the fact that the impugned statutory provision has been made
in discharge of the constitutional power to legislate, the Division
Bench did not see that the said provision is unconstitutional,
particularly when no reckonable infraction of Article 14 has been
established to the satisfaction of the Court, impeaching that
provision, which is part of a primary legislation.
26.2. In Mohankumar R. [2016 (2) KLT 963], on the
sustainability of the Super Class Scheme, notified vide notification
dated 16.07.2013, the Division Bench held that, once the power
to make a scheme is demonstrated to be available in terms of the
constitutional scheme of the relevant Statute, it would be
impermissible for the writ court, or any other judicial authority for
that matter, to visit any scheme formulated and issued by the
competent authority in terms of the statutory provisions which
are, by themselves, sustainable on the face of the Constitution.
Therefore, the horizons of judicial review in such matters cannot
be stretched to encompass any view that would fall beyond the
purview of judicial intervention. The Division Bench rejected the
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 77
plea against the finding of the learned Single Judge as to the
validity of the impugned scheme, and the challenge levelled
against that scheme. Paragraph 14 of the said decision reads thus;
"14. Issue No. V: Sustainability of the impugned scheme:
Section 99 of the 1988 Act and the impugned Rules having
been upheld above, judicial review of the impugned scheme
cannot go overboard to lay down any principle or schematic
approach based on the administrative wisdom or practical
approach by the judicial authority, namely, this Court sitting
in judicial review; either through the learned Single Judge,
being the authority as regards exercise of power under
Article 226 of the Constitution, in the first instance, or
through the Division Bench in writ appeal, which is an intra-
court appeal under the provisions of the Kerala High Court
Act, 1958. Once the power to make a scheme is
demonstrated to be available in terms of the constitutional
scheme of the relevant Statute, it would be impermissible
for the writ court, or any other judicial authority for that
matter, to visit any scheme formulated and issued by the
competent authority in terms of the statutory provisions
which are, by themselves, sustainable on the face of the
Constitution. Therefore, the horizons of judicial review in
such matters cannot be stretched to encompass any view
that would fall beyond the purview of judicial intervention.
The precedents referred to by the learned counsel for the
parties do not, in any way, help the appellants or the writ
petitioner. The plea against the finding of the learned Single
Judge as to the validity of the impugned scheme and the
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 78
challenge levelled to that scheme are only to be rejected.
We do so." (underline supplied)
26.3. In Mohankumar R. [2016 (2) KLT 963], on the
effect and practical impact of the Super Class Scheme, notified
vide notification dated 16.07.2013, and the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Rules, and the factual scenario
available in terms of the interlocutory orders, the Division Bench
held that, if KSRTC does not apply for grant of permit through any
route which is a notified route or covered by a scheme, temporary
permits can be granted to the private operators based on
temporary need, and, if there are routes for which permits have
been granted to KSRTC in relation to notified routes or notified
areas and if the KSRTC is not utilising the permits by operating the
services, it will be open to the Regional Transport Authority to act
on any application for grant of temporary permits to the private
operators over such routes. The Division Bench ordered that the
State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as
the case may be, shall act in conformity with the declaration made
in paragraph 15 of the decision. Paragraph 15 of the decision reads
thus;
2026:KER:3756
"15. Issue No.VI: The effect and practical impact of the
scheme and the provisions of the 1988 Act and the Rules
and the factual scenario available in terms of the
interlocutory orders: Section 104 of the 1988 Act specifically
restricts the grant of permits in respect of a notified area or
notified route. That provision fell for pointed consideration
in Punjab Roadways v. Punja Sahib Bus and Transport
Co. [(2010) 5 SCC 235]. It was noted therein that through
the proviso to Section 104, an exception has been carved
out to the effect that where no application for permit has
been made by the State Transport Undertaking in respect of
any notified area or notified route in pursuance of an
approved scheme, the State Transport Authority or the
Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, may grant
temporary permits to any person in respect of any such
notified area or notified route subject to the condition that
such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of permit
to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of that area or
route. The Apex Court held that same is the situation in
respect of a case where a State Transport Undertaking, in
spite of the grant of permit, does not operate the service or
surrenders the permit granted or is not utilising the permit.
In such a situation, it should be deemed that no application
for a permit has been made by the State Transport
Undertaking, and it is open to the Regional Transport
Authority to grant a temporary permit if there is a temporary
need. By granting regular permits to the private operators,
2026:KER:3756
the Regional Transport Authority will be upsetting the ratio
fixed under the scheme, which is legally impermissible. The
net effect of principles stated in Punjab Roadways (supra)
is that, even if a State Transport Undertaking has been
granted a permit and if it is not utilising that permit, it would
be open to the Regional Transport Authority to grant a
temporary permit, if there is a temporary need. Practically
stated, the application by a State Transport Undertaking for
a permit in respect of a scheme is necessarily a clear
indicator as to the temporary need as well. Therefore, when
the State Transport Undertaking has been granted a permit
and is not utilising the permit, it would be open to the
Regional Transport Authority to act on any application for
the grant of a temporary permit to a private operator. In
Luka Devassia v. Regional Transport [2015 (3) KLJ
76], a Division Bench of this Court held, among other
things, that the impugned scheme has not created a
situation by which the existing operators' rights have been
totally taken away. We are in agreement with that
precedent, and we follow it. Through a common
interlocutory order dated 23.12.2014 in these appeals and
writ petition, this Court, after hearing the counsel for all the
parties, referred to the findings in the judgment impugned
in the appeals and also to different other materials and
statutory provisions in the 1988 Act. It was ultimately
concluded and ordered that applications of private operators
for temporary permits can be considered even on notified
routes covered by the scheme if as on the date of
consideration of the application the State Transport
2026:KER:3756
Corporation has not applied for a permit and in such event,
temporary permits be issued if other conditions as to grant
are complied with, subject to the rider that the permits, if
any, thus issued shall cease to be effective on the date on
which the State Transport Corporation commences
operation on the very same route. This interlocutory
direction issued by this Court on 23.12.2014 is nothing but
a concomitant corollary of the ratio of Punjab Roadways
(supra). Resultantly, it has also to be taken that, even where
the State Transport Corporation has applied for and obtained
a permit to operate and is not utilising the permit by
operating services in accordance with the grant, the private
operators would be eligible to apply for a temporary permit.
Obviously, the existence of a temporary need would be
established under such cases with reference to the fact that
the State Transport Corporation had applied for and
obtained permits. Therefore, the net effect of these
situations is that if the State Transport Corporation does not
apply for grant of permit through any route which is a
notified route or covered by a scheme, temporary permits
can be granted to the private operators based on temporary
need, and if there are routes for which permits have been
granted to the State Transport Corporation in relation to
notified routes or notified areas and if the State Transport
Corporation is not utilising the permit by operating the
services, it will be open to the Regional Transport Authority
to act on any application for grant of temporary permit to
the private operators over such routes. This conclusion is
the true effect and resultant practical impact of the scheme
2026:KER:3756
in the backdrop of the relevant provisions of the 1988 Act
and the Rules in the light of the different precedents laid
down by the Apex Court, in particular Punjab Roadways
(supra), and the decisions referred to therein. It is so
declared." (underline supplied)
27. The specific stand taken by KSRTC in paragraph 5 of
the counter affidavit dated 15.11.2024 filed in W.P.(C)No.39608 of
2024 is that there were altogether 241 Super-Fast permits in the
private sector. All these permits in the private sector are replaced
by KSRTC. Thus, in view of Ext.R3(a) scheme of 2013, the right of
private stage carriages to get regular permits is limited to ordinary
service.
28. Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988,
inserted by the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1999,
with effect from 03.02.1999, 'ordinary service' means service,
which is operated on a route having a distance of not more than
140 kilometers with one or more stops in every fare stage.
29. In the year 2017, by the Kerala Motor Vehicles (1st
Amendment) Rules, 2017 - G.O.(P)No.6/2017/Trans. dated
15.03.2017 - [Ext.R3(b) in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024], in the
Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, in Rule 2, sub-clause (oa) was
re-lettered as sub-clause (ob), and before sub-clause (ob) as so
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 83
re-lettered, the following sub-clause was inserted, with effect from
15.03.2017, namely;
"(oa) 'Ordinary Limited Stop Service' means a service, which
is operated on a route having a distance of not exceeding
140 Kilometres with limited number of stops, having at least
one stop in every fare stage;" (underline supplied)
30. The Government of Kerala vide Annexure III
notification in W.A.No.2342 of 2025 - G.O.(P)No.8/2017/Tran.
dated 23.03.2017 - notified a modified scheme in relation to 31
routes all over Kerala, notified under G.O.(P)No.42/2009/Tran.
dated 14.07.2009 and published as SRO No.608/2009 in the
Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.1272 dated 14.07.2009. In the
said notification dated 23.03.2017, it is stated as follows;
"SRO No.151/2017.- WHEREAS, the Government had
approved a scheme in public interest for the purpose of
providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly
co-ordinated passenger road transport service in relation to
31 routes all over Kerala as per Notification issued under
G.O.(P)No.42/2009/Tran. dated 14th July, 2009 and
published as SRO No.608/2009 in the Kerala Gazette
Extraordinary No.1272 dated 14th July, 2009;
WHEREAS, the Government of Kerala having the opinion
that the above said notification requires modification;
2026:KER:3756
AND WHEREAS the proposal regarding the modification
scheme for the purpose was published as draft scheme to
modify the said scheme, as per Notification No.12878/B1/
2015/Tran. dated 8th February, 2016 in the Kerala Gazette
Extraordinary No.359 dated 11th February, 2016 and in the
Deshabhimani daily dated 15th February, 2016 and Kerala
Kaumudi daily dated 15th February, 2016 as required by sub-
section (2) of Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(Central Act 59 of 1988) read with clause (b) of Rule 246 of
the Kerala Motor vehicles Rules, 1989;
AND WHEREAS, the State Government, after having
considered the objections received against the draft scheme
and after having heard the objectors and representatives of
State Transport Undertaking, is satisfied that it is necessary
in public interest to implement the scheme relating to the
proposal with modifications;
NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (Central vehicles Act 59 of 1988) read with clause (d)
of Rule 246 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the
Government of Kerala hereby approve the proposal
regarding the modified scheme as stated below that the
passenger road transport service as per the particulars in
the Schedule given below should be run and operated
exclusively by the State Transport Undertaking."
(underline supplied)
31. Clauses (4) and (5) of the modified scheme in relation
to 31 routes all over Kerala, notified on 23.03.2017, read thus;
2026:KER:3756
4 Whether the Yes, the permits Yes, partially. The
services are to be issued in the private permits granted
operated by the sector on or before in the Private
State Transport 9th May, 2006, will Sector as on 14th
Undertakings to be allowed to July, 2009 will be
the exclusion of continue till the permitted to
other persons or dates of expiry of operate as
otherwise: the respective Ordinary or
permits. Thereafter, Ordinary Limited
regular permits will Stop Service. The
be granted to them. maximum
When the State distance
Transport prescribed in the
Undertaking applies Rule 2 (oa) in the
for introducing new Kerala Motor
services in the Vehicle Rules,
above routes, 1989 shall apply
corresponding to these saved
number of existing permits provided
private stage that further
carriage permits in extension or
the said routes variation shall
whose permits not be allowed
expire first after under any
filing application by circumstance.
the State Transport This scheme shall
Undertaking shall not affect the
not be renewed. As operation of
regards permits other State
issued after 9th May, Transport
2006, temporary Undertakings.
permits alone shall
be issued afresh on
expiry in these
routes or any
portion thereof till
such time the State
Transport
Undertaking
replaces with new
services. The
decision of the
State Transport
Undertaking to
apply for permits to
replace the existing
Stage Carriages as
above shall be
2026:KER:3756
taken by the Chief
Executive of the
State Transport
Undertaking.
5 If the operation shall be to the exclusion of other services:-
(a) Whether such Partial till the Partial
exclusion shall be existing private
complete or services operating
partial; on the routes are
replaced as
provided in item 4
above.
(b) If such exclusion The existing The existing and
shall be partial, the services issued with operating permits
sectors of the route permit on or before as on 14th July,
from where other 9th May, 2006, and 2009, will be
services are to be after 9th May, 2006 permitted to
excluded; and shall he permitted operate as
to continue as in Ordinary or
clause 4 above till Ordinary Limited
they are replaced Stop Service.
by buses owned by
the State Transport
Undertakings.
(c) Whether it is Yes, on the portion Yes, existing and
proposed to allow of the route operating permits
other services to permitted to in the Private
pick up or set down operate as in clause Sector as on 14th
passengers 4 above. Permits July, 2009 are
between any two will also be granted allowed to
places on the route to private stage operate subject
covered by the carriages of other to modified
scheme. routes permitting clauses 4 and
them to overlap 5 5(b) Permits will
kilometre or 5 also be granted
percent of the to private stage
length of their own carriages on
routes, whichever is other routes
less on the notified permitting them
routes, for purposes to overlap 5
of intersection. kilometre or 5%
of the length of
their own routes,
whichever is less
on the notified
routes, for the
purpose of
intersection.
2026:KER:3756
32. Challenging the validity of Clause (4) of the Annexure
III scheme notified vide G.O.(P)No.8/2017/Tran. dated
23.03.2017, W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017 and connected matters
were filed before this Court by the holders of regular stage
carriage permits on select routes that had been reserved for
KSRTC vide a scheme notified by G.O.(P)No.42/2009/Tran. dated
14.07.2009 [Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017]. As per the said
scheme, regular permits issued in the private sector prior to
09.05.2006 could be renewed only subject to the State Transport
Undertaking not offering a substitute service in the vacancy that
had resulted. It was also clarified that regular permits issued after
09.05.2006 would not be renewed, and only temporary permits
would be issued after the expiry of the validity of the regular
permits already issued.
33. W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017 and connected matters were
considered by the Division Bench along with the writ appeals filed
by KSRTC against the common judgment dated 15.03.2018 of a
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.30161 of 2017 and connected
matters, allowing the writ petitions preferred by private stage
carriage operators, seeking a consideration of their applications
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 88
for variation/extension of their temporary route permits, on non-
notified routes. KSRTC impugned the said judgment on the ground
that the directions contained therein militate against the express
provisions of Clause (4) of the scheme dated 23.03.2017.
34. In Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v.
Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617 : 2018 (4) KLJ 145], the
Division Bench noticed that though the scheme notified vide
G.O.(P)No.42/2009/Tran. dated 14.07.2009 [Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No.
11825 of 2017] was challenged before this Court, the writ
petitions were dismissed, and the said scheme attained finality.
While so, a fresh scheme [Ext.P7 in W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017] was
notified vide G.O.(P)No.73/2013/Trans. dated 16.07.2013 [Ext.
R3(a) in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024], which is a service-centric
scheme, whereby the right to operate all classes of services, other
than ordinary service, in respect of stage carriages in the State of
Kerala, was given exclusively to the State Transport Undertaking,
i.e., KSRTC. Though the said scheme was also impugned through
various writ petitions, the said writ petitions were dismissed, and
the said scheme has also attained finality. Effectively, therefore,
Ext.P5 scheme in relation to 31 routes and Ext.P7 scheme that
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 89
reserved all higher classes of services to KSRTC, governed the
rights of private stage carriage operators on the notified routes
and in respect of the notified services. Through notification dated
16.07.2013 [Ext.P8 in W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017], the State
Government amended the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989,
substituting the definition of other services, in order to make it in
tune with Ext.P7 scheme that was notified. On account of the
combined operation of Exts.P5 and P7 schemes, the stage carriage
operators in the private sector faced many difficulties, since their
operations were limited to ordinary services, save for those
permits that were protected under Exts.P5 and P7 schemes. With
a view to mitigate the hardship caused to the private operators,
the State Government issued G.O.(Ms.)No.45/2015/Trans. dated
20.08.2015 [Ext.P9 in W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017], which envisaged
the grant of Ordinary Limited Stop [OLS] service permits to all
operators who were operating higher class of services, and who
were denied a renewal of such permits pursuant to Ext.P7 scheme.
Ext.P9 Government order made it clear that the permits would be
granted in terms of the order, notwithstanding anything contained
in Clause (4) of Ext.P5 scheme. Ext.P9 Government order also
2026:KER:3756
indicated that necessary amendments would be made to Ext.P5
scheme, as also to the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, so as to give
effect to the proposals in the said order. Ext.P9 Government order,
i.e., G.O.(Ms.)No.45/2015/Trans. dated 20.08.2015, reads thus;
"As per G.O.(P)No.73/2013/Trans. dated 16.07.2013 issued
under SRO No.555/2013, the Government approved a
scheme specifying that fast passenger services, Super-Fast
Services, Super Express Services, Super Deluxe Services
and Luxury Services should be run and operated by the STU,
by invoking the powers conferred by sub-section (2) and (3)
of Section 100 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Similarly,
invoking the above powers the Government approved a
scheme as per G.O.(P)No.42/09/Trans. dated 14.07.2009
and issued as SRO No.608/2009 stipulating that the
passenger road transport service through 31 routes in the
State should be operated by the State Transport
Undertaking. Challenging the above scheme, a number of
WP(C)s were filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Affected
parties also filed SLPs before the Hon'ble Apex Court. In
respect of the scheme notified under SRO No.608/2009,
even though the Hon'ble High Court stayed the operation of
Clause (4) of the scheme the Hon'ble Court upheld the
scheme in the judgment dated 10.04.2015 in
W.P.(C)No.14793 of 2006, W.P.(C)No. 20520 of 2009 and
connected cases by dismissing the WP(C)s. Likewise, the
Hon'ble High Court upheld the scheme notified under SRO
2026:KER:3756
No.555/2013 in W.P.(C)No.18959 of 2013 and connected
cases.
The WA filed against the said judgment is pending before
the Hon'ble High Court.
By virtue of the above schemes and in accordance with the
conditions stipulated in the respective scheme, KSRTC
applied for permits, which were being operated by the
private operators. Consequent on the takeover of these
permits by the KSRTC, so many private stage carriages
became off-road, and a crisis emanated in the stage carriage
operation sector. This emerged as a vital issue against the
survival of the workers employed in their buses, as well as
the owners who had made huge investments and were
subjected to heavy liabilities in various banks and other
financial institutions for the procurement and operation of
the buses.
The rejection of permits to the above category of stage
carriages and the withdrawal of such buses operated by the
private stage carriage operators also caused impediments
to the travel facilities of the public at large. Representations
have also been received in the Government from various
quarters urging significant action to solve this complex
issue.
Having regard to the above situation and the impending
deadlock in the stage carriage operation sector due to the
total withdrawal of the private stage carriages from the
notified routes and areas, the Government have examined
the matter in its entirety and find it expedient to introduce
2026:KER:3756
certain measures as a policy decision of the Government.
Accordingly, the following orders are issued:
1. The scheme notified as per SRO No.555/2013 shall
remain as such without any modification.
2. The Regional Transport Authorities will issue Ordinary
Limited Stop Service permits to those private stage
carriages which had been operated as higher class service,
such as Fast Passenger, Super Fast services, etc., and the
permits of which were subsequently rejected by the
Regional Transport Authorities as a result of coming into the
effect of the scheme notified as SRO No.555/2013. The
Regional Transport Authorities will also issue Ordinary
Limited Stop service permits to those stage carriages, the
permits of which are liable to be rejected by the Regional
Transport Authorities, consequent on the coming into being
of the scheme notified as SRO No.555/2013.
3. Students will be eligible for concession journey in all the
ordinary limited stop services, also subject to the other
conditions stipulated for granting the concession journey.
4. In all the stage carriages GPS will be introduced to ensure
that they are operated strictly in accordance with the permit
conditions. The Motor Vehicles Department will take
immediate action to implement the scheme.
5. The STA will issue appropriate orders on the age of the
buses for being operated as Ordinary Limited Stop services.
6. Appropriate timing will be granted by the RTAs for the
operation of the Ordinary Limited Stop services within a
period of 15 days, and up to the above period of 15 days,
the existing timings will be in force.
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 93
7. The Regional Transport Authorities will issue Ordinary
Limited Stop Service permits to all the existing higher-class
services operated by the private operators in the routes
covered under SRO No.608/09. But those permits, which are
being operated as ordinary service and ordinary limited stop
service, shall be allowed to continue as such in the above
routes.
8. Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (4) of SRO
No.608/2009 or Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles
Rules 1989, the Regional Transport Authorities will issue
Ordinary Limited Stop service permits to those private
operators, whose permits were rejected by the Regional
Transport Authorities consequent to the scheme notified as
per SRO No.555/2013.
9. The Transport Commissioner and the Chairman &
Managing Director, KSRTC, will forward the necessary
proposal for amending Clause (4) of SRO No.608/2009 as
well as the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, within two
weeks.
These orders will be subject to the final decision in the cases
pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High
Court." (underline supplied)
34.1. In Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], the Division
Bench noticed that, after the issuance of Ext.P9 Government order
dated 20.08.2015, the State Government issued draft notification
No.12878/B1/2015/Tran. dated 08.02.2016 [Ext.P10 in W.P.(C)
No.11825 of 2017] for modifying Ext.P5 scheme. Clause (4) of the
2026:KER:3756
draft notification proposed that all permits in the private sector on
or before 14.07.2009 will be permitted to operate as either
Ordinary service or Ordinary Limited Stop service. It was also
made clear that the maximum distance in Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala
Motor Vehicle Rules would not apply to the saved permits.
Thereafter, vide notification No.536/B2/2016/Tran. dated
19.02.2016 [Ext.P11 in W.P.(C) No.11825 of 2017], a draft
amendment to the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules was proposed,
whereby, a new definition for 'Ordinary Limited Stop services' was
inserted in Rule 2, without any restriction as regards maximum
distance, but making it clear that the vehicle used for such
services could not be older than 10 years from the date of
registration of the vehicle. In response to the draft notifications
proposing the modification of Ext.P5 scheme, as also an
amendment to the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, objections were
filed, and after a consideration of the said objections, the State
Government proceeded to issue G.O.(P)No.6/2017/Tran. dated
15.03.2017 [Ext.P12 in W.P.(C) No.11825 of 2017], notifying the
definition of 'Ordinary Limited Stop Service' with a prescription of
maximum distance of 140 kilometres, but taking away the
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 95
stipulation with regard to the age of the vehicle that had to be
used for the services in question. Similarly, by G.O.(P)No.
8/2017/Tran. dated 23.03.2017 [Ext.P13 in W.P.(C) No.11825 of
2017], the draft scheme for modifying Ext.P5 scheme was
finalised, introducing a new restriction, namely, that the maximum
distance in Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules would
apply to saved permits.
34.2. In Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], in W.P.(C)No.
11825 of 2017 and connected matters, Exts.P12 and P13
notifications are impugned primarily on the contention that, while
finalising the draft scheme and the draft rules, the principles of
natural justice that had to be observed through the procedures
contemplated under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, were
not followed, thereby resulting in the notification of a scheme/Rule
that was not valid for non-compliance with the statutory
procedure. For appreciating the contentions of the learned counsel
for the petitioners in the writ petitions, the Division Bench given
at paragraph 9 of the said decision, a comparative chart showing
the proposed amendment and the notified amendment of Ext.P5
scheme, as also the proposed amendment to the Kerala Motor
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 96
Vehicle Rules. The Division Bench noticed that the petitioners in
the writ petitions were essentially aggrieved by two events, viz.,
(i) the finalisation of Ext.P13 scheme that modifies the earlier
scheme, i.e., Ext.P5 scheme dated 14.07.2009, in a manner
different from what was proposed in Ext.P10 draft scheme, and
(ii) the amendment of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules through
Ext.P12 notification dated 15.03.2017, in a manner different from
what was proposed in Ext.P11 draft notification dated 19.02.2016.
Before the Division Bench, it was the case of the petitioners that
the statutory procedure prescribed under the Kerala Motor
Vehicles Act and the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules mandates that,
while notifying or modifying a scheme under Section 100 or
Section 102 or amending a rule in terms of Section 212 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, a draft is first published, the objections and
suggestions received from various stakeholders considered by the
State Government, and only thereafter, the scheme finalised, or
the amended rule notified. It was contended that the statutory
procedure is aimed at ensuring transparency and fairness in the
matter of deprivation of pre-existing rights and hence, the
procedure followed cannot result in the finalisation of a scheme,
2026:KER:3756
or amendment of a rule, in a manner different from what was
proposed through the draft scheme, or the draft amendment that
was notified. This was stated to be more so when the changes
brought about are prejudicial to the interests of the stakeholders.
34.3. In Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], with specific
reference to the modifications effected to Ext.P5 scheme, the
petitioners contended that, while under the said scheme, a cut-off
date of 09.05.2006 was fixed, and regular permits issued in the
private sector prior to the said date were permitted to be renewed
only till such time as the State Transport Undertaking offered a
substitute service in the vacancy, in the case of regular permits
issued after the cut-off date, no renewal thereof was permitted,
but temporary permits could be granted after the expiry of the
regular permit. Thus, limited rights were retained for the holders
of the 'saved permits'. Thereafter, Ext.P7 scheme dated
16.07.2013 was notified, whereby the right to operate all classes
of services, other than ordinary services in the State of Kerala,
was conferred exclusively on the State Transport Undertaking,
and noticing the plight of the operators in the private sector, the
State Government, by Ext.P9 Government order dated
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 98
20.08.2015, decided to grant Ordinary Limited Stop Services
(OLSS) permits to all operators who were operating higher class
services and who were denied renewal pursuant to Ext.P7 scheme.
These permits were to be granted notwithstanding the restrictive
conditions in Clause (4) of Ext.P5 scheme. It was thereafter, and
in the above factual backdrop, that a modification to Ext.P5
scheme was proposed, through Ext.P10 draft scheme,
whereunder, all permit holders in the private sector, on or before
14.07.2009, would be permitted to operate as either ordinary
service or OLSS, with the rider that the maximum distance
specified in Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, would
not apply to the said saved permits. The said rider, however, was
deleted in the finalised scheme and the maximum distance in Rule
2(oa) was held applicable to 'saved permits'. Reliance was placed
on the decision of this Court in Vijayan P.K. v. Government of
Kerala [2008 (3) KHC 566] to contend that, insofar as the
notified scheme varied substantially from the proposal published,
and the introduction of the maximum distance rule to 'saved
permits' was without notice to the affected parties, the same was
2026:KER:3756
in violation of the rules of natural justice and the introduction of
the new condition cannot be legally sustained.
34.4. In Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], the contention
on behalf of KSTRC was that the exercise that was commenced
through Ext.P10 draft notification was to modify Ext.P5 scheme
and hence, the pre-existing rights that the private operators had
were only those rights that were saved to them in Ext.P5 scheme.
In other words, the rights that were granted to them through
Ext.P9 Government order cannot be seen as flowing from Ext.P5
scheme and, therefore, since Ext.P10 draft scheme and Ext.P13
finalised scheme only granted additional rights to the holders of
saved permits, they cannot be seen as prejudiced on account of
the distance restriction introduced, in respect of a class of permit
to which they did not have any previous entitlement.
34.5. In Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], after
considering the rival contentions, the Division Bench found that
the law governing the formulation of schemes is to be found in
Sections 99 and 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said provisions
mandate that, if the State Government is of the opinion that, for
the purpose of providing efficient, adequate, economical and
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 100
properly guaranteed road transport services in relation to any area
or route or operation thereto, these road transport services should
be run and operated by the State Transport Undertakings to the
exclusion, either complete or partial, of private stage carriage
operators, a proposal in the official gazette shall be published as
provided under Section 99 of the Act. The objections to the said
proposal will be invited before the State Government under
Section 100. After considering the objections and affording an
opportunity to the objectors or their representatives and the
representatives of the State Transport Undertaking, the State
Government may approve or modify such proposals. The same
procedure is followed for the purpose of modifying an existing
scheme under Section 102. The provisions of Sections 99, 100 and
102 indicate that the procedure to be followed, while introducing
a scheme or modifying an existing one, is one that is designed to
ensure transparency and fairness in matters involving pre-existing
rights of private transport operators. It follows, therefore, that
there cannot be any finalisation of a scheme, which is different
from the one that was proposed, and in respect of which objections
were invited. The introduction of a restrictive element, i.e., the
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 101
stipulation that the maximum distance limit would apply to the
saved permits, while finalising a draft that did not contain such a
stipulation, has, therefore, to be seen as breaching the aforesaid
statutory safeguard.
34.6. In Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], the Division
Bench considered the question as to whether the petitioners in
W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017 and connected matters had a pre-
existing right, relatable to Ext.P5 scheme, to operate ordinary and
OLS services without any restriction as regards distance. Although
the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC vehemently contended
that the said rights accrued to the private operators, not through
Ext.P5 scheme, but only through Ext.P9 Government order dated
20.08.2015, the Division Bench was of the view that the
rights/privileges granted to the petitioners through Ext.P9
Government order cannot be seen as divorced from Ext.P5
scheme. The Division Bench noticed that Ext.P9 Government order
was issued in the wake of Ext.P7 scheme, which deprived private
operators of their right to operate a higher class of services in the
State, and the rights granted through the said Government order
were with a view to ameliorate their situation. The rights that they
2026:KER:3756
obtained, in respect of stage carriage operation, were pursuant to
Ext.P5 scheme on notified routes and Ext.P9 Government order
for operation in the State. The modification proposed by the State,
through Ext.P10 notification, was with a view to incorporate their
rights, as obtained through Ext.P9 Government order, in Ext.P5
scheme, through the modification procedure under Section 102.
The pre-existing rights of private transport operators, prior to the
modification process, have to be considered in this backdrop. Thus
viewed, the conclusion is inescapable that, Ext.P10 draft scheme
proposed to retain the rights obtained by the private operators
through Ext.P9 Government order, while modifying Ext.P5
scheme, and while finalising the said draft scheme, the State
Government could not have made the stipulation with regard to
maximum distance applicable to the permits saved by Ext.P5
scheme. Therefore, the Division Bench quashed Clause (4) of
Ext.P13 scheme that makes the maximum distance in Rule 2(oa)
of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules applicable to the 'saved
permits'.
34.7. In Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], as regards the
challenge in W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017 and connected matters to
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 103
the validity of the amendments brought about to the Kerala Motor
Vehicle Rules through Ext.P12 notification dated 15.03.2017, the
Division Bench noticed that the contentions raised are more or less
identical to those raised in respect of the challenge to the modified
scheme. It was contended that, insofar as Rule 2(oa), as
amended, contained a stipulation of maximum distance of 140 km,
in the definition of Ordinary Limited Stop Services, but this
stipulation was not there in the draft rule that was notified through
Ext.P11 notification, the principles of natural justice, as envisaged
in the statutory procedure, had been breached, thereby vitiating
the amendment and rendering it invalid. Although, at first blush,
it appeared that the same reasons that led to the quashing of the
impugned clause in the modified scheme would lead to hold the
amended rule also as invalid, on a closer scrutiny the Division
Bench found that the right to operate ordinary and OLS services,
without distance restrictions, was one accrued to private operators
affected by Exts.P5 and P7 schemes, in terms of the said schemes,
read with Ext.P9 Government order. In other words, there was no
pre-existing right in the private operators, conferred under the
Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules, to operate an OLS service. Such
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 104
being the case, the draft amendment introduced, for the first time,
a definition of Ordinary Limited Stop Service in the Rules. Although
the definition contained in the draft notification did not stipulate a
maximum distance, it is difficult to conceive of any objection that
a private operator could have raised against the introduction of a
new class of service for the first time. Similarly, the private
operators could not have insisted that the OLS service that was
being introduced had to be one without any stipulation as to
maximum distance, for that would tantamount to dictating a policy
to the State Government. Under the circumstances, the Division
Bench repelled the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners
that, in introducing a stipulation as regards maximum distance,
while finalising the draft rules, the State Government had
breached the statutory procedure. The Division Bench noticed
that, as a matter of fact, the State Government did consider the
objections raised with regard to the stipulation, in the draft rules,
that the vehicle used for the OLS service could not be older than
ten years from the date of registration, and removed the said
stipulation from the definition of OLS service while notifying the
amended rule. Therefore, the Division Bench rejected the
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 105
challenge to the validity of the amendment and to Ext.P12
notification, which notified the same. Accordingly, the writ
petitions were partly allowed, quashing Clause (4) of Ext.P13
scheme, and repelling the challenge against Ext.P12 notification
and the amendment notified thereunder.
34.8. In Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], W.A.No.1098
of 2018 and connected matters were filed by KSRTC impugning
the common judgment dated 15.3.2018 of the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C)No.30161 of 2017 and connected matters. The
said writ petitions were filed challenging the orders passed by the
Regional Transport Authorities, whereby the requests made by
various private stage carriage operators for a variation in their
permits were rejected. The learned Single Judge set aside the
rejection orders of the concerned Regional Transport Authorities
and directed them to consider the requests of the petitioners for
variation or extension of permits. In cases where no variation or
extension was prayed for on the notified routes, the same were
directed to be taken up and considered in accordance with the
provisions of Section 80(3) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act. It was
made clear that KSRTC would also be heard before orders are
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 106
passed by the concerned Regional Transport Authorities. The
Division Bench noticed that, in the writ appeals filed by KSRTC,
the main ground of challenge against the judgment of the Single
Judge is that the directions in the judgment effectively confer
more rights/privileges on the private stage carriage operators than
what has been saved to them through Clause (4) of the modified
scheme. Since Clause (4) of Ext.P13 modified scheme stands
quashed, the said ground taken in the writ appeals cannot survive
for maintaining the appeals. Accordingly, the Division Bench
dismissed the writ appeals preferred by KSRTC.
35. Ext.P9 Government order referred to in the decision of
the Division Bench in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], was
withdrawn by the Government vide G.O.(Ms.)No.22/2020/Trans.
dated 01.07.2020, stating that the said Government order, which
is not in consonance with the statutory provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, read with clause (d) of Rule 246 of Kerala
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, cannot prevail over or co-exist with
the statutory scheme and Rule. The Government order dated
01.07.2020 reads thus;
2026:KER:3756
"As per G.O.(P)No.7/2013/Trans. dated 16.07.2013
published as SRO No. 555/2013, the Government of Kerala
have issued a scheme for the operation of Super Class
services exclusively for Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation under Section 100(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. As per the Scheme, Fast Passenger, Super-Fast
Services, Super Deluxe Services, and other Super Class
services are to be run and operated in the State of Kerala
exclusively by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation.
As per Clause (3) of the Notification, permits issued in the
private sector on or before the date of notification shall be
allowed to continue till the date of expiry of the respective
permits, there after no permit shall be renewed or no
regular temporary permit shall be issued. The above scheme
was challenged by the private operators before the Hon'ble
High Court of Kerala and the Writ Petitions were dismissed
in Kerala State Limited Stop/Stage Carriage Operators
Association v. Government of Kerala [2014 (2) KLT 135]
against which private operators filed Writ Appeal No.661 of
2014 and connected case before the Hon'ble High Court, and
stay was not granted. The Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation had started about 240 number of services in the
place of private operators which was being operated as
Superclass service, consequent of the takeover of these
permits so many private stage carriage permits were
rejected by the Transport Authorities on the basis of Cause
(4) of the SRO No.608/2009 and Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala
Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. In the above circumstances,
private operators approached the Government, and the
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 108
Government of Kerala issued G.O.(Ms.)No.45/2015/Trans.
dated 20.08.2015, by which it was directed to issue
Ordinary Limited Stop services to those private stage
carriage operators who were operating Fast Passenger and
other Super Class Services. The above said Government
Order was only a temporary measure, and as per the order
itself, Transport Commissioner and Managing Director,
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation were required to
forward a necessary proposal for amending the scheme and
Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. Subsequently, the Kerala Motor
Vehicles Rules were amended. Rule 2(oa) was incorporated,
giving definition to Ordinary Limited Stop service with a
prescription of maximum 140 KMs. G.O.(P)No.45/2015/
Trans. dated 20.08.2015 was issued, subject to the final
decision of the cases pending before the Hon'ble High Court
at that time. Subsequently, such cases were dismissed by
the Hon'ble High Court in Mohan Kumar v. Government of
Kerala and another, reported in [2016 (2) KLT 963].
Therefore, the private operators have no right to continue
to operate on the routes having a route length above 140
KMs.
The Government have examined the matter in detail. Right
of STU and private operators have to be governed by the
scheme, which is prevailing and operating at any point of
time. G.O.(P)No.45/2015/Trans. dated 20.08.2015 is not in
consonance with the statutory provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, read with clause (d) of Rule 246 of
2026:KER:3756
Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The above G.O cannot
prevail over or co-exist with statutory scheme and Rule.
In the circumstances, the Government consider it
appropriate to withdraw G.O.(P)No.45/2015/Trans. dated
20.08.2015, read above, and it is hereby withdrawn with
immediate effect." (underline supplied)
36. The aforesaid Government order dated 01.07.2020,
whereby G.O.(P)No.45/2015/Trans. dated 20.08.2015 - Ext.P9
Government order in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617] - was
withdrawn, was under challenge in W.P.(C)No.11074 of 2020 and
connected matters filed by the stage carriage operators, by
contending that G.O.(Ms.)No.22/2020/Trans. dated 01.07.2020
was an unnecessary exercise of power because the Division Bench
in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617] held the permits enjoyed
by the writ petitioners in W.P.(C)No.11074 of 2020 and connected
matters to be 'saved permits'; they thus being entitled to operate
at least, until such time, as a valid scheme of nationalisation, or a
modification of the earlier scheme, is brought in under the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Once Saju Varkey [2018
(4) KHC 617] was delivered by the Division Bench, even
G.O.(P)No.45/2015/Trans. dated 20.08.2015 lost its relevance,
since it had been issued only as a transitory measure, until such
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 110
time as the Government brought out a valid scheme. Therefore,
the petitioners prayed that either the Court declare that, on
account of the declarations of Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC
617], the petitioners are entitled to operate on the strength of the
permits already enjoyed by them; or, in the alternative, to strike
down the Government order dated 01.07.2020. On the other
hand, the learned Special Government Pleader for the State and
the official respondents contended that the petitioners were able
to operate on the routes, which are now proposed to be
nationalised, solely on account of the Government order dated
20.08.2015, but when a new scheme was propounded in the year
2017, the said order was rendered without legs to stand on.
Consequently, the Government withdrew it through the
Government order dated 01.07.2020. Since the Government is in
the process of issuing a modified scheme under the provisions of
the Motor Vehicles Act, the benefit of the Government order dated
20.08.2015 cannot inure to the petitioners any more.
37. In Thomas George v. Regional Transport Authority
and others [2022:KER:1750] - judgment dated 12.01.2022 in
W.P.(C)No.11074 of 2020 and connected matters, the learned
Single Judge held that the petitioners are operating not on the
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 111
strength of the Government order dated 20.08.2015, but on the
specific, indubitable and express declarations of the Division
Bench in paragraph 16 of Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617].
Therefore, the act of the Government in withdrawing the
Government order dated 20.08.2015, by issuing the Government
order dated 01.07.2020, would really have no effect whatsoever.
Paragraphs 5 to 9 of the said decision read thus;
"5. Before I tread forward, I must record that when these
matters were heard by this Court on 29.10.2021, after
assessing the rival positions, I passed the following interim
order.
"Even though I have heard these matters finally, I am
unable to deliver judgment on account of paucity of
time today.
2. I, therefore, adjourn these matters to be called on
08.11.2021; until which date, the status quo with
respect to the Temporary Permits of the petitioners
will be maintained.
3. To paraphrase, they be allowed to operate in the
manner as they are permitted today, until the next
posting date."
6. It is conceded before me by both sides that this order is
still in effect and that the petitioners are operating their
services on its terms.
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 112
7. In the Background of the afore essential facts, it is
perspicuous that the controversy arose at a time when the
Government wanted to bring out a scheme, but which, on
account of certain discrepancies between the draft and the
final notifications, could not take effect. It is then that the
Government brought out the "2015 G.O" purportedly to help
persons like the petitioners, and they then proceeded to
issue a modified scheme, during the process of which, Saju
Varkey (supra) was delivered by a learned Division Bench
of this Court.
8. Indubitably, therefore, the petitioners are now operating
not on the strength of the "2015 G.O.", but on the specific,
indubitable, and express declarations of this Court in
paragraph 16 of Saju Varkey (supra). Axiomatically,
therefore, the act of the Government in withdrawing the
"2015 G.O.", by issuing the "2020 G.O.", would really have
no effect whatsoever.
9. It is needless to say that as long as the declarations in
Saju Varkey (supra) remains - which it will certainly until
a modified or new scheme is brought into effect - I fail to
understand how the Government will get any benefit
through the "2020 G.O." (underline supplied)
37.1. In Thomas George [2022:KER:1750], after taking
note of the submission made by the learned Special Government
Pleader that liberty may be reserved to the competent authority,
including the Government, to bring out a new or a modified
scheme under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 113
Single Judge held that even though the Government has
withdrawn the Government order dated 20.08.2015, through the
Government order dated 01.07.2020, the de facto or de jure
position cannot be altered; and hence, on account of the interim
order dated 29.10.2021, which had been issued taking note of the
observations of the learned Division Bench, the petitioners will
certainly be entitled to continue to operate, at least until such time
the Government brings out a modified or a new scheme as per the
Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge, by the
judgment dated 12.01.2022, disposed of the writ petitions,
confirming the interim order dated 29.10.2021; however,
clarifying that it will continue to be in effect only until such time
the Government brings out a modified or new scheme under the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioners are given
liberty to challenge any such scheme, in accordance with law.
Paragraphs 10 to 14 and also the last paragraphs of the said
decision read thus;
'10. I must also record that, to a pointed question from this
Court in this regard, the learned Special Government
Pleader was unable to contest this issue, but prayed that
liberty may be reserved to the competent Authority,
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 114
including the Government, to bring out a new or a modified
scheme under the provisions of the M.V. Act.
11. The afore narrated facts would clearly establish that the
operation of the routes now done by the petitioners is not
on the basis of the "2015 G.O.", but on the declarations of
the learned Division Bench of this Court in Saju Varkey
(supra).
12. Resultantly, therefore, even though the Government has
withdrawn the "2015 G.O", through the "2020 G.O.", the de
facto or de jure position cannot be altered; and hence, on
account of the interim order of this Court, afore extracted -
which had been issued taking note of the observations of
the learned Division Bench - the petitioners will certainly be
entitled to continue to operate, at least until such time as
the Government brings out a modified or a new scheme as
per the M.V. Act.
13. Of course, this cannot be construed to mean that this
Court has ordered the Government to bring out a modified
or a new scheme; and certainly, therefore, even if such is
brought in, it will be open to the petitioners to challenge it
appropriately, for which purpose, all their contentions are
left open.
14. As far as this Court is concerned and for the purpose of
this writ petition, I am only considering whether these writ
petitions will require to be continued on the files of this
Court, merely because a modified or a new scheme is being
brought in by the Government; and am certain that it is not
so necessary.
2026:KER:3756
Resultantly, confirming the afore interim order, I dispose of
all these writ petitions; however, clarify that it will continue
to be in effect only until such time as the Government brings
out a modified or a new scheme under the provisions of M.V.
Act. Though unnecessary to say so, the petitioners will be
at liberty to challenge any such scheme in terms of law, for
the purpose of which, all their contentions are left open.
I also record the submissions of Sri.Santhoshkumar -
learned Special Government Pleader, at this time, that the
Government has not proposed a new scheme but only a
modified final scheme, based on the draft which has already
been published.' (underline supplied)
38. KSRTC filed W.A.No.772 of 2022 and connected
matters against the judgment dated 12.01.2022 of the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.11074 of 2020 and connected matters.
The Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, and another filed
W.A.No.931 of 2020 against the judgment dated 12.02.2020 of
the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.3952 of 2020. In W.A.No.
931 of 2020, the Division Bench granted an interim order on
24.09.2020, which reads thus;
'Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.02.2020 in W.P.
(C)No.3952 of 2020, instant writ appeal is filed by the
appellant/the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, by
which Learned Single Judge quashed order of the first
appellant and directed to renew the permit of the petitioner
by allowing the replacement and issuing a renewed permit
2026:KER:3756
without the condition restricting the route length to 140
kms.
2. The impugned judgment reads as under:
"The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved
by Ext.P5 order of the RTA, which directs him to
maintain a maximum distance of 140 Km while
operating an Ordinary Limited Stop Service under the
permit granted to him. In the writ petition, it is the
case of the petitioner that the permit issued to him is
a saved permit as contemplated under Ext.P4
judgment of this Court and, therefore, the restriction
with regard to the route length/maximum distance will
not apply to the said permit. It is stated that
notwithstanding the fact that Ext.P4 judgment was
brought to the notice of the RTA, the RTA passed
Ext.P5 order directing the petitioner to restrict the
route length to 140 Km for his service, which is an
Ordinary Limited Stop Service.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader for the
respondents.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of
the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I
find that Ext.P5 order of the RTA is passed by
overlooking the clear directions in Ext.P4 judgment of
this Court. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P5 order, and
direct the RTA to renew the permit of the petitioner by
allowing the replacement and issuing a renewed
permit without the condition restricting the route
2026:KER:3756
length to 140 Km. The renewed permit, as directed,
shall be issued within three weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall
produce a copy of the writ petition together with a
copy of the judgment before the respondents for
further action."
3. Mr.P. Santhosh Kumar learned Special Government
Pleader submitted that the Government have issued G.O.
(Ms.)No.22/2020/Trans. dated 1.7.2020, withdrawing G.O.
(Ms.)No.45/2015/Trans. dated 20.8.2015. He further
submitted that since G.O.(Ms.)No.45/2015/Trans. dated
20.8.2015 is withdrawn, the writ petitioner is not entitled to
get the renewal of his permit on the route exceeding 140km.
This Court's attention has been drawn to another notification
issued on 14.9.2020 bearing No.B1/13/2016/Tran.
4. In the light of the above, learned Government Pleader
submitted that the directions of the writ court in
W.P.(C)No.3952 of 2020 dated 12th February, 2020 is
contrary to the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, which has been
upheld by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in Kerala
State Road Transport Corporation v. Saju Varkey and
others [2018 (4) KHC 617].
5. Mr.K.V.Gopinathan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent, made submissions as regards the applicability
of the subsequent Government orders, i.e., G.O.(Ms.)No.
22/2020/Trans. dated 01.07.2020 and G.O.(Ms.)No.
45/2015/Trans. dated 20.08.2015. He further submitted
that the appellant/respondent could not refuse to issue a
permit.
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 118
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the
case, we are of the view that the appellant has made a prima
facie case for admission and accordingly, writ appeal is
admitted.
7. There shall be an interim stay of operation of the
impugned judgment dated 12.2.2020 in W.P.(C)No.3952 of
2020.
Post after six weeks.'
38.1. On 27.06.2022, when W.A.Nos.772 of 2022 to 775 of
2022 and 779 of 2022 came up for consideration, the Registry was
directed to post the writ appeals filed by KSRTC along with
W.A.No.931 of 2020, after two weeks, as the issues involved in
those cases are connected. On 23.08.2022, the Division Bench
granted an interim stay in the writ appeals filed by KSRTC against
the judgment dated 12.01.2022 of the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(C)No.11074 of 2020 and connected matters.
38.2. On 26.05.2023, when the aforesaid writ appeals came
up for consideration, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
KSRTC submitted that a scheme was launched by the Government
in that regard, by virtue of which the KSRTC does not intend to
press the appeals. The learned Special Government Pleader also
submitted that the Government is not intending to press the
appeals. Therefore, by the judgment dated 26.05.2023, the
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 119
Division Bench closed the appeals; however, the questions of law
and facts raised by the appellants are left open. The judgment
dated 26.05.2023 of the Division Bench reads thus;
"The captioned writ appeals except one are filed by the
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation; and one of the
appeals is by the State Government challenging the
judgment of the learned Single Judge in various writ
petitions. The subject issue relates to the operation of stage
carriages exceeding 140 km.
2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Ranjit Thampan appearing for
the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, submitted that
a scheme is launched by the Government in that regard, by
virtue of which the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
is not intending to press the appeals.
3. Learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that
the Government is not intending to press the appeals filed
by the Government.
Therefore, the appeals are closed accordingly. In that view
of the matter, the questions of law and facts raised by the
appellants are left open.
Writ appeals are closed, recording the above."
(underline supplied)
38.3. On 26.05.2023, when the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for KSRTC and the learned Special Government Pleader
submitted before the Division Bench that they are not intending
to press the aforesaid writ appeals filed by KSRTC and the Regional
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 120
Transport Authority, since the Government, vide G.O.(P)No.
13/2023/Trans. dated 03.05.2023, approved the proposal
regarding the modified scheme that the passenger road transport
service as per the particulars in the schedule to the said
notification should be run and operated exclusively by the State
Transport Undertaking.
39. The aforesaid notification dated 03.05.2023 was under
challenge in W.P.(C)No.17469 of 2023 and connected matters. In
the judgment dated 06.11.2024, the learned Single Judge found
that, as evident from the final notification dated 03.05.2023
[Ext.P14], no reasons, even in brief, are coming forth for rejecting
the objections filed by the writ petitioners to the proposed scheme
in the draft notification dated 14.09.2020 [Ext.P9], except for
saying that the objections were considered, and objectors were
heard as mentioned in the final notification. For the reasons stated
in the said judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ
petitions by setting aside the said notification dated 03.05.2023.
40. In Rajesh K. [2025 (3) KHC SN 10], the Division
Bench held that, in view of the mandatory requirements of sub-
section (2) of Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned
Single Judge cannot be found fault with in concluding that the
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 121
notification dated 14.09.2020 [Ext.P9] does not satisfy the
statutory requirements and as such the final notification dated
03.05.2023 [Ext.P14] cannot be said to be in accordance with law.
Paragraph 75 of the said decision reads thus;
"75. A decision taken by the State Government, in the
exercise of its powers under Section 102 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, read with the relevant provisions of the
Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, modifying an approved
scheme, can be challenged by an affected private operator,
invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, in the absence of any statutory
remedy. The absence of reasons will make nugatory and
ineffective the exercise of the power of judicial review by
this Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. During the course of arguments, it is
not in dispute that the Government files relating to Ext.P14
notification do not disclose any reason whatsoever for
disposing or rejecting the objections in the representations
made by the private operators and others, made pursuant
to Ext.P9 notification dated 14.09.2020. There is nothing on
record to suggest that due consideration was given to such
objections. It is well settled that the hearing required to be
given is not an empty formality. In such circumstances, we
find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment
dated 06.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(C)No.17469 of 2023 and connected matters."
2026:KER:3756
41. As already noticed hereinbefore, in Rajesh K. [2025
(3) KHC SN 10], the contention raised by the learned Senior
Counsel for KSRTC and the learned Senior Government Pleader for
the State and its officials on the locus standi of the private
operators to challenge the final scheme published vide
G.O.(P)No.13/2023/Trans. dated 03.05.2023, on the ground that
their right to operate on long-distance routes has already been
extinguished by the operation of law as per the Super Class
Scheme published vide G.O.(P)No.73/2013/Tran. dated
16.07.2013 [Ext.R3(a) in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024] and the
Kerala Motor Vehicles (1st Amendment) Rules, 2017, published
vide G.O.(P)No.6/2017/Trans. dated 15.03.2017, was left open,
since the Division Bench noticed that a reading of the impugned
judgment dated 06.11.2024 would not show that such a
contention was ever raised during the course of arguments, before
the learned Single Judge.
42. Clauses (1) to (3) of Ext.R3(a) Super Class Scheme
make it explicitly clear that the area in relation to which the
Scheme is proposed is all over the State of Kerala; the class of
service is Fast Passenger services, Super-Fast services, Super
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 123
Express services, Super Deluxe services and Luxury services; and
the services are to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking
to the exclusion of other persons. The permits issued in the private
sector on or before the date of the notification shall be allowed to
continue till the dates of expiry of the respective permits.
Thereafter, no permits shall be renewed, and no permit, regular or
temporary, shall be issued afresh. As per the proviso to Clause
(3), the exclusion shall be partial till the existing Private Services
operating routes are replaced as provided. As per Clause (18), the
right to operate any class of service other than ordinary service in
the State of Kerala and to increase the trips shall be reserved
exclusively with State Transport Undertakings.
43. In Kerala State Limited Stop Stage Carriages
Operators Association [2014 (2) KLT 135], on the challenge
made against Ext.R3(a) Super Class Scheme, the learned Single
Judge held that, Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not
impose any restriction on the Government in undertaking to
operate on all routes in the State, to operate such number of
services or trips as per traffic demand. If the Government decides
to exclude private operators from certain routes or all the routes
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 124
in the State, insofar as the power is available with the State
Government under Chapter VI, and as stated above, Ext.R3(a)
Super Class Scheme cannot be brushed aside. The scheme thus
framed cannot be said to be inconsistent with any other provisions
of the Motor Vehicles Act, especially in view of Section 98 of the
Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge concluded that the
petitioners have not succeeded in challenging the validity of
Ext.R3(a) Super Class Scheme.
44. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was under
challenge in W.A.No.667 of 2014 and connected matters. In
Mohankumar R. [2016 (2) KLT 963], on the sustainability of
Ext.R3(a) Super Class Scheme, the Division Bench held that, once
the power to make a scheme is demonstrated to be available in
terms of the constitutional scheme of the relevant Statute, it
would be impermissible for the writ court, or any other judicial
authority for that matter, to visit any scheme formulated and
issued by the competent authority in terms of the statutory
provisions which are, by themselves, sustainable on the face of
the Constitution. Therefore, the horizons of judicial review in such
matters cannot be stretched to encompass any view that would
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 125
fall beyond the purview of judicial intervention. The Division Bench
rejected the plea against the finding of the learned Single Judge
as to the validity of Ext.R3(a) Super Class Scheme and the
challenge levelled against that scheme.
45. In Mohankumar R. [2016 (2) KLT 963], on the
effect and practical impact of Ext.R3(a) Super Class Scheme, and
the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Rules, and
the factual scenario available in terms of the interlocutory orders,
the Division Bench held that, if KSRTC does not apply for grant of
permit through any route which is a notified route or covered by
a scheme, temporary permits can be granted to the private
operators based on temporary need, and, if there are routes for
which permits have been granted to KSRTC in relation to notified
routes or notified areas, and if the KSRTC is not utilising the
permits by operating the services, it will be open to the Regional
Transport Authority to act on any application for the grant of
temporary permits to the private operators over such routes. The
Division Bench ordered that the State Transport Authority or the
Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall act in
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 126
conformity with the declaration made in paragraph 15 of the
decision.
46. In paragraph 15 of the decision in Mohankumar R.
[2016 (2) KLT 963], the Division Bench noticed that the
provisions contained in Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, which specifically restricts the grant of permits in respect of
a notified area or notified route fell for pointed consideration of
the Apex Court in Punjab Roadways v. Punja Sahib Bus and
Transport Co. [(2010) 5 SCC 235]. The Apex Court noticed that
through the proviso to Section 104, an exception has been carved
out to the effect that where no application for permit has been
made by the State Transport Undertaking in respect of any notified
area or notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme, the
State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as
the case may be, may grant temporary permits to any person in
respect of any such notified area or notified route subject to the
condition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue
of permit to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of that
area or route. The same is the situation in respect of a case where
a State Transport Undertaking, in spite of the grant of a permit,
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 127
does not operate the service or surrenders the permit granted or
is not utilising the permit. In such a situation, it should be deemed
that no application for a permit has been made by the State
Transport Undertaking, and it is open to the Regional Transport
Authority to grant a temporary permit, if there is a temporary
need. The Apex Court held that, by granting regular permits to
private operators, the Regional Transport Authority will be
upsetting the ratio fixed under the scheme, which is legally
impermissible.
47. In Mohankumar R. [2016 (2) KLT 963], the Division
Bench noticed that, the net effect of the principles stated in
Punjab Roadways [(2010) 5 SCC 235] is that, even if a State
Transport Undertaking has been granted a permit and if it is not
utilising that permit, it would be open to the Regional Transport
Authority to grant a temporary permit, if there is a temporary
need. The application by a State Transport Undertaking for a
permit, in respect of a scheme, is necessarily a clear indicator as
to the temporary need as well. Therefore, when the State
Transport Undertaking has been granted a permit and is not
utilising the permit, it would be open to the Regional Transport
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 128
Authority to act on any application for the grant of a temporary
permit to a private operator.
48. In Luka Devassia v. Regional Transport [2015 (3)
KLJ 76], on the challenge made against Clause (4) of the scheme
notified vide G.O.(P)No.42/2009/Tran. dated 14.07.2009 [Ext.P5
in W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017 - Saju Varkey - 2018 (4) KHC 617] in
relation to 31 routes, a Division Bench of this Court held that the
said clause excludes all services other than that of the State
Transport Undertaking. However, it is stated that permits issued
on or before 09.05.2006 in the private sector will be allowed to
continue till the date of expiry of the respective permits. It is
further stated that, thereafter, regular permits will be granted to
them. Further, Clause (4) indicates that when the State Transport
Undertaking applies for introducing new services in such routes,
the corresponding number of existing private stage carriage
permits in the said route, whose permits expire first after filing of
the application by the State Transport Undertaking, shall not be
renewed. In respect of permits issued after 09.05.2006,
temporary permits alone will be issued until the State Transport
Undertaking replaces with new services. The decision as to
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 129
whether the State Transport Undertaking shall apply for permits
to replace the existing stage carriage shall be taken by its Chief
Executive. In other words, as far as the existing permit holders
who had obtained permits prior to 09.05.2006 are concerned,
their permits will be renewed, and they will be permitted to
continue till the expiry of their permits, and thereafter regular
permits will be granted to them on condition that they will be
replaced when the State Transport Undertaking introduces new
services in any of those routes. But, as far as permits issued after
09.05.2006 are concerned, only temporary permits will be issued,
which will be issued only till the State Transport Undertaking
replaces with new services. The Division Bench found that, by this
provision, no substantial damage has been caused to the private
operators. Therefore, the private operators having regular permits
as on 09.05.2006 are concerned, their regular permits were
entitled to be renewed subject to the condition that, when the
State Transport Undertaking starts operation on the same route,
their permits will not be renewed. Therefore, the existing
operators as on 09.05.2006 are classified differently, and their
rights are protected to a certain extent. Those permit holders who
2026:KER:3756
had obtained a regular permit after 09.05.2006, restrictions have
been imposed, under which they are entitled to get only temporary
permits until the State Transport Undertaking starts operation on
the same route. Therefore, the Division Bench found that Clause
(4) of the scheme has not created a situation by which the existing
operators' rights have been totally taken away. For that reason
itself, the decision taken by the Government under the scheme
cannot be said to be arbitrary.
49. In paragraph 15 of the decision in Mohankumar R.
[2016 (2) KLT 963], the Division Bench agreed with the
precedent laid down in Luka Devassia [2015 (3) KLJ 76] that
the scheme notified vide G.O.(P)No.42/2009/Tran. dated
14.07.2009 [Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No. 11825 of 2017 - Saju Varkey -
2018 (4) KHC 617] in relation to 31 routes has not created a
situation by which the existing operators' rights have been totally
taken away. The relevant portion of paragraph 15 reads thus;
"15. ........ In Luka Devassia v. Regional Transport
[2015 (3) KLJ 76], a Division Bench of this Court held,
among other things, that the impugned scheme has not
created a situation by which the existing operators' rights
have been totally taken away. We are in agreement with that
precedent, and we follow it. .........." (underline supplied)
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 131
50. In paragraph 15 of the decision in Mohankumar R.
[2016 (2) KLT 963], the Division Bench held that if the State
Transport Corporation does not apply for grant of permit through
any route which is a notified route or covered by a scheme,
temporary permits can be granted to the private operators based
on temporary need, and, if there are routes for which permits
have been granted to the State Transport Corporation in relation
to notified routes or notified areas and if the State Transport
Corporation is not utilising the permit by operating the services,
it will be open to the Regional Transport Authority to act on any
application for grant of temporary permit to the private operators
over such routes. This conclusion is the true effect and resultant
practical impact of the scheme in the backdrop of the relevant
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Rules, in the
light of the different precedents laid down by the Apex Court, in
particular, Punjab Roadways [(2010) 5 SCC 235], and the
decisions referred to therein.
51. In Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], on the
question as to whether the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017
and connected matters had a pre-existing right, relatable to
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 132
Ext.P5 scheme dated 14.07.2009, to operate ordinary and OLS
services without any restriction as regards distance, it was
contended before the Division Bench, by the learned Standing
Counsel for KSRTC, that the said right accrued to the private
operators, not through Ext.P5 scheme, but only through Ext.P9
Government order dated 20.08.2015. However, the Division
Bench was of the view that the rights/privileges granted to the
petitioners through Ext.P9 Government order cannot be seen as
divorced from Ext.P5 scheme. Ext.P10 draft scheme proposed to
retain the rights obtained by the private operators through Ext.P9
Government order, while modifying Ext.P5 scheme, and while
finalising the said draft scheme, the State Government could not
have made the stipulation with regard to the maximum distance
applicable to the permits saved by Ext.P5 scheme. Therefore, the
Division Bench quashed Clause (4) of the scheme dated
23.03.2017 [Ext.P13 in W.P.(C) No.11825 of 2017]. Paragraph 16
of the said decision reads thus;
"16. Thus viewed, the conclusion is inescapable that,
Ext.P10 draft scheme proposed to retain the rights obtained
by the private operators through Ext.P9 Government order,
while modifying Ext.P5 scheme, and while finalising the said
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 133
draft scheme, the State Government could not have made
the stipulation with regard to the maximum distance
applicable to the permits saved by Ext.P5 scheme. We,
therefore, find in favour of the petitioners on the said issue
and quash Clause (4) of Ext.P13 scheme that makes the
maximum distance in Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala Motor
Vehicles Rules applicable to the 'saved permits'."
(underline supplied)
52. In Thomas George [2022:KER:1750], the learned
Single Judge held that the petitioners therein are operating not on
the strength of G.O.(P)No.45/2015/Trans. dated 20.08.2015, but
on the specific, indubitable and express declarations of the
Division Bench in paragraph 16 of Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC
617]. Therefore, the act of the Government in withdrawing the
Government order dated 20.08.2015, by issuing G.O.(Ms.)No.
22/2020/Trans. dated 01.07.2020, would really have no effect
whatsoever. On account of the interim order dated 29.10.2021,
which had been issued taking note of the observations of the
learned Division Bench in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], the
petitioners will certainly be entitled to continue to operate, at least
until such time the Government brings out a modified or a new
scheme as per the Motor Vehicles Act. W.A.No.772 of 2022 and
connected matters filed against the judgment dated 12.01.2022
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 134
of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.11074 of 2020 and
connected matters and W.A.No.931 of 2020 filed by the Regional
Transport Authority, Palakkad, and another against the judgment
dated 12.02.2020 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.3952
of 2020 were closed by the judgment dated 26.05.2023; however,
the question of law and facts raised by the appellants were left
open.
53. As held by the Division Bench in Luka Devassia
[2015 (3) KLJ 76], Clause (4) of the scheme notified vide
G.O.(P)No.42/2009/Tran. dated 14.07.2009 [Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No.
11825 of 2017] in relation to 31 routes, which excludes all services
other than that of the State Transport Undertaking, has not
created a situation by which the existing operators' rights have
been totally taken away. In the case of private operators having
regular permits as on 09.05.2006, their regular permits were
entitled to be renewed subject to the condition that, when the
State Transport Undertaking starts operation on the same route,
their permits will not be renewed. Therefore, the existing
operators as on 09.05.2006 are classified differently, and their
rights are protected to a certain extent.
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 135
54. In paragraph 15 of the decision in Mohankumar R.
[2016 (2) KLT 963], on the effect and practical impact of
Ext.R3(a) Super Class Scheme notified vide notification dated
16.07.2013, and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
and the Rules, and the factual scenario available in terms of the
interlocutory orders, the Division Bench held that, if KSRTC does
not apply for grant of permit through any route which is a notified
route or covered by a scheme, temporary permits can be granted
to the private operators based on temporary need, and, if there
are routes for which permits have been granted to KSRTC in
relation to notified routes or notified areas, and if the KSRTC is not
utilising the permits by operating the services, it will be open to
the Regional Transport Authority to act on any application for the
grant of temporary permits to the private operators over such
routes. In paragraph 15, the Division Bench agreed with the
precedent laid down in Luka Devassia [2015 (3) KLJ 76] that
Ext.P5 scheme notified vide G.O.(P)No.42/2009/Tran. dated
14.07.2009 in relation to 31 routes has not created a situation by
which the existing operators' rights have been totally taken away.
The Division Bench ordered that the State Transport Authority or
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 136
the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall act in
conformity with the declaration made in paragraph 15 of the
decision.
55. When the aforesaid right of the holders of 'saved
permits' was attempted to be taken away, by the stipulation in
Clause (4) of the modified scheme notified vide G.O.(P)No.
8/2017/Tran. dated 23.03.2017 [Ext.P13 in W.P.(C) No.11825 of
2017], with regard to the maximum distance applicable to the
permits saved by Ext.P5 scheme, the Division Bench in Saju
Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617] quashed the said clause, holding
that when the draft scheme notified vide notification No.12878/
B1/2015/Tran. dated 08.02.2016 [Ext.P10 in W.P.(C)No.11825 of
2017] proposed to retain the rights obtained by the private
operators through the Government order dated 20.08.2015
[Ext.P9 in W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017], while modifying the scheme
notified vide G.O.(P)No.42/2009/Tran. dated 14.07.2009 [Ext.P5
in W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017], and while finalising Ext.P10 draft
scheme, the State Government could not have made the
stipulation with regard to the maximum distance applicable to the
permits saved by Ext.P5 scheme. The Division Bench viewed that
2026:KER:3756
the rights/privileges granted to the holders of 'saved permits'
through Ext.P9 Government order dated 20.08.2015 cannot be
seen as divorced from Ext.P5 scheme.
56. Clause (4) of the scheme notified vide G.O.(P)No.
42/2009/Tran. dated 14.07.2009 [Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No.11825 of
2017], inter alia, provided that the services to be operated by the
State Transport Undertaking along the notified routes were to the
exclusion of private stage carriages operating in the said routes.
Clause (4) of Ext.P5 scheme reads thus;
(4) Whether the services are to : Yes, the permits issued in
be operated by the State the private sector on or
Transport Undertaking to before 09.05.2006 will be
the exclusion of other allowed to continue till the
persons or otherwise. dates of expiry of the
respective permits.
Thereafter, regular
permits will be granted to
them. When the State
Transport Undertaking
applies for introducing
new services in the above
routes, corresponding
number of existing private
stage carriage permits in
the said routes whose
permits expire first after
filing application by the
State Transport
Undertaking shall not be
renewed. As regards
permits issued after
09.05.2006, temporary
permits alone shall be
issued afresh on expiry in
these routes or any
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 138
portion thereof till such
time the State Transport
Undertaking replaces with
new services. The decision
of the State Transport
Undertaking to apply for
permits to replace the
existing Stage Carriages
as above shall be taken by
the Chief Executive of the
State Transport
Undertaking.
(underline supplied)
57. In Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v.
Baby P.P. [(2018) 7 SCC 501], a Three-Judge Bench of the
Apex Court found that, from Clause (4) of the scheme notified vide
G.O.(P)No.42/2009/Tran. dated 14.07.2009 [Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No.
11825 of 2017], it is clear that the permits which were already
issued to the private sector prior to 09.05.2006 will be allowed to
continue until the date of expiry of the respective permits.
Thereafter, regular permits will be granted to them. However, as
and when the State Transport Undertaking applies for introducing
a new service on the route, the corresponding number of existing
private stage carriage permits in the said route, whose permits
expire first after the filing of the application by the State Transport
Undertaking, shall not be renewed. Meaning thereby, the services
to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking along the
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 139
notified route were to the exclusion of private stage carriages if
the State Transport Undertaking operates on the same route.
57.1. In Baby P.P. [(2018) 7 SCC 501], the Apex Court
found that, a plain reading of Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, makes it amply clear that where a scheme has been
published under sub-section (3) of Section 100 of the Act in
respect of any notified area or notified route, grant of any permit
on the notified route or area is impermissible, except in
accordance with the provisions of the scheme. However, the
proviso clarifies that wherever the State Transport Undertaking
has not sought any permit in respect of any notified route or
notified area in pursuance to the scheme, the Regional Transport
Authority or State Transport Authority, as the case may be, may
grant a temporary permit to any private stage carriage operator
in respect of such notified area or notified route, on the condition
that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit
to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of that area or
route. The scheme formulated and published by the State
Government under sub-section (3) of Section 100 of the Act holds
the fort in all matters involving permits. As observed in various
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 140
decisions, including Gajraj Singh v. State Transport Appellate
Tribunal [(1997) 1 SCC 650], the scheme is a law by itself.
58. The rights/privileges granted to the holders of 'saved
permits', referred to by the Division Bench in Saju Varkey [2018
(4) KHC 617], should be something fundamentally and
inseparably connected to Ext.P5 scheme. As held by the Division
Bench in Luka Devassia [2015 (3) KLJ 76], in the case of
private operators having regular permits as on 09.05.2006, their
regular permits were entitled to be renewed subject to the
condition that, when the State Transport Undertaking starts
operation on the same route, their permits will not be renewed.
The said legal position is now well settled by the decision of the
Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Baby P.P. [(2018) 7
SCC 501]. In Mohankumar R. [2016 (2) KLT 963], on the
effect and practical impact of Ext.R3(a) Super Class Scheme
notified vide notification dated 16.07.2013, the Division Bench
held that, if KSRTC does not apply for grant of permit through any
route which is a notified route or covered by a scheme, temporary
permits can be granted to the private operators based on
temporary need, and, if there are routes for which permits have
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 141
been granted to KSRTC in relation to notified routes or notified
areas, and if the KSRTC is not utilising the permits by operating
the services, it will be open to the Regional Transport Authority to
act on any application for the grant of temporary permits to the
private operators over such routes. In Mohankumar R. [2016
(2) KLT 963], the Division Bench agreed with the precedent laid
down in Luka Devassia [2015 (3) KLJ 76] that Ext.P5 scheme
in relation to 31 routes has not created a situation by which the
existing operators' rights have been totally taken away, and
directed the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport
Authority, as the case may be, to act in conformity with the
declaration made in paragraph 15 of the said decision.
59. As already noticed hereinbefore, the specific stand
taken by KSRTC in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit dated
15.11.2024 filed in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024 is that there were
altogether 241 Super-Fast permits in the private sector. All these
permits in the private sector are replaced by KSRTC. In
G.O.(Ms.)No.22/2020/Trans. dated 01.07.2020, whereby G.O.(P)
No.45/2015/Trans. dated 20.08.2015 was withdrawn, which was
under challenge in W.P.(C)No.11074 of 2020 and connected
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 142
matters, it is stated that KSRTC had started about 240 number of
services in the place of private operators which was being operated
as Super Class service. The relevant portion of the first paragraph
of the Government order dated 01.07.2020, which we have
extracted hereinbefore at paragraph 35, reads thus;
"The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation had started
about 240 number of services in the place of private
operators which was being operated as Super Class Service,
consequent of the takeover of these permits so many private
stage carriage permits were rejected by the Transport
Authorities on the basis of Cause (4) of the SRO
No.608/2009 and Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle
Rules, 1989." (underline supplied)
60. As held by the Apex Court in Baby P.P. [(2018) 7
SCC 501], the services to be operated by the State Transport
Undertaking along the notified route were to the exclusion of
private stage carriages if the State Transport Undertaking operates
on the same route. The permits, which were issued to the private
sector prior to 09.05.2006, will be allowed to continue until the
date of expiry of the respective permits. Thereafter, regular
permits will be granted to them. However, as and when the State
Transport Undertaking applies for introducing a new service on the
route, the corresponding number of existing private stage carriage
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 143
permits in the said route, whose permits expire first after the filing
of the application by the State Transport Undertaking, shall not be
renewed.
61. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v.
Anwar Ahmed [(1997) 3 SCC 191], the Apex Court held that,
once the scheme has been approved and notified under sub-
section (3) of Section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the
right to ply stage carriages by private operators on the notified
area, routes or portions thereof is totally frozen. Therefore, they
have no right to claim any grant of stage carriage, temporary or
contract carriage permits thereunder on the said notified area,
routes or portions thereof except to the extent saved by the
scheme with restrictions imposed thereunder. Where the scheme
has been published under sub-section (3) of Section 100, in
respect of any notified area or notified route, the State Transport
Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be,
shall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions
of the scheme.
62. In view of the law laid down in Luka Devassia [2015
(3) KLJ 76], Mohankumar R. [2016 (2) KLT 963] and Baby
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 144
P.P. [(2018) 7 SCC 501], the rights/privileges granted to the
holders of 'saved permits', referred to by the Division Bench in
Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], and taken note of by the
learned Single Judge in Thomas George [2022:KER:1750], will
not entitle the holders of such permits to make applications for
temporary permits or regular permits over the routes in relation
to notified routes or notified areas in which permits have been
granted to the State Transport Undertaking, and if the State
Transport Undertaking is utilising the permits by operating the
services. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Anwar
Ahmed [(1997) 3 SCC 191], the holders of such permits have
no right to claim grant of any temporary permits or regular permits
over the routes in relation to notified routes or notified areas
except to the extent saved by the scheme with restrictions
imposed thereunder. In that view of the matter, the conclusion is
irresistible that the entitlement of the holders of 'saved permits',
which were issued to the private sector prior to 09.05.2006, who
were allowed to continue until the date of expiry of the respective
permits, for renewal of their respective permits, is only until the
State Transport Undertaking, i.e., KSRTC, applies for introducing
a new service on the route, in which event the corresponding
2026:KER:3756
number of existing private stage carriage permits in the said route,
which expire first after the filing of the application by KSRTC, shall
not be renewed. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench
in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], the maximum distance
criterion of 140 kilometers in clause (oa) of Rule 2 of the Kerala
Motor Vehicles Rules, cannot be made applicable in the case of a
'saved permit', while considering its renewal, subject to the above
restriction imposed under the scheme.
63. In the above circumstances, these writ appeals are
disposed of by modifying the impugned judgment dated
01.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.39608 of
2024 and connected matters by holding that the entitlement of
the holders of 'saved permits', which were issued to the private
sector prior to 09.05.2006, who were allowed to continue until the
date of expiry of the respective permits, for renewal of their
respective permits, is only until KSRTC applies for introducing a
new service on the route, in which event the corresponding
number of existing private stage carriage permits in the said route,
which expire first after the filing of the application by KSRTC, shall
not be renewed. The maximum distance criterion of 140
kilometers in clause (oa) of Rule 2 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles
2026:KER:3756
W.A.No.2342 of 2025, etc. 146
Rules cannot be made applicable in the case of a 'saved permit',
while considering its renewal, subject to the above restriction
imposed under the scheme, in view of the law laid down by the
Division Bench in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617].
The concerned Regional Transport Authorities are directed to
consider the respective applications made by the writ petitioners,
who are holders of 'saved permits', strictly in terms of the law laid
down as above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this judgment, after affording them an opportunity of being
heard.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
bkn/-
2026:KER:3756
APPENDIX OF WA NO. 2342 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION VIDE G.O(P)
NO. 42/2009/TRANS. DATED 14.07.2009
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Annexure-II TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2014
IN IA NO. 16213 OF 2014 IN W.P.(C) NO.
18786 OF 2014 IN STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.
VS. KERALA STATE BUS PASSENGERS
ASSOCIATION AND ANR.
Annexure-III TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED SCHEME VIDE NO.
G.O.(P) NO. 8/2017/TRANS. DATED
25.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Annexure-IV TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2025
OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SLP
(CIVIL) DIARY NO. 36057 OF 2025 IN KERALA
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS.
RAJEESH K JACOB AND ORS.
Annexure-V TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.09.2025
IN SLP (CRIMINAL) NO. 6677-6681 OF 2025
IN SREEJA D.G AND ORS. VS. ANITHA R NAIR
AND ANR. OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT
Annexure-VI TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2025
IN M.P. JOY VS. SHEFIQ .B. IN CONTEMPT
CASE (C) NO. 2086 OF 2025 IN W.P.(C) NO.
39608 OF 2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
