[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
The Regional Transport Authority, ... vs Suresh Kumar.V.K on 19 January, 2026
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 1 2026:KER:4097
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 29TH POUSHA, 1947
WA NO.2458 OF 2025
ARISING FROM THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.08.2025 IN WP(C).NO.21198 OF 2025 OF
THE 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 N.M. BIJU, AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O MATHAI, NELLICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KELAKOM P.O.,
KANNUR, PIN - 670674
2 THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, COLLECTORATE P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
4 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
BY ADV. SRI. RILGIN V. GEORGE FOR R1
BY P. SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER FOR R2 TO R4
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2025, ALONG
WITH WA.2863 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 19.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 2 2026:KER:4097
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 29TH POUSHA, 1947
WA NO.2863 OF 2025
ARISING FROM THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.08.2025 IN WP(C)NO.40312 OF 2024 OF
THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN WP(C):
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
VATAKARA, PIN - 673101
2 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
VATAKARA, PIN - 673101
BY P. SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT IN WP(C):
1 SURESH KUMAR V.K, AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, VATTAPPAAMBIL HOUSE, DESOM.P.O., ALUVA,
ERNKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683516
2 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN,
FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
BY ADV.SRI.O.D.SIVADAS FOR R1
BY ADV SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM) FOR R2
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2025, ALONG
WITH WA.2458 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 19.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 3 2026:KER:4097
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
W.A.No.2458 of 2025 filed by the Kerala State Road
Transport Corporation (KSRTC) arises out of the common
judgment dated 01.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2025 and connected matters, including
W.P.(C)No.21198 of 2025. W.A.No.2863 of 2025 filed by the
Regional Transport Authority, Vatakara and its Secretary arises out
of the said common judgment in W.P.(C)No.40312 of 2024.
2. W.P.(C)No.21198 of 2025 was filed by the 1st
respondent in W.A.No.2458 of 2025, who was holding Ext.P1 stage
carriage permit on the route Kottayam-Ambayathodu, an inter-
district route exceeding 450 kilometers, in respect of stage
carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-78/4590 and Ext.P1(a) stage carriage
permit on the very same route in respect of stage carriage bearing
Reg.No.KL-05/AQ-7268. The said permits issued in the year 1999
for a period of 5 years were renewed periodically and the last
renewal was for the period from 30.07.2009 to 27.09.2014. In the
writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs;
"i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other
writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 4 2026:KER:4097
(RTA) to consider and pass final orders on the applications
for renewal of Exts.P1 and P1(a) regular permits as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a time limit to
be stipulated by this Honourable Court taking into account
Ext.P9 judgment in W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and connected
cases and the dictum laid down in KSRTC and others vs.
Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KLJ 145].
ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other
writ, order or direction commanding the 3rd respondent
(Secretary, RTA) to forthwith consider and pass final orders
on Exts.P10 and P10 (a) applications 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 Exts.P1 and P1(a) regular
permits taking into account Ext.P9 judgment in
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and connected cases and the dictum
laid down in KSRTC and others vs. Saju Varkey [2018
(4) KLJ 145].
iii. Declare that petitioner herein as the holder of Exts.P1
and P1(a) saved permits is entitled to renewal of the same
without any distance embargo in the light of the dictum laid
down in KSRTC and others vs. Saju Varkey [2018 (4)
KLJ 145]."
3. W.P.(C)No.40312 of 2024 was filed by the 1st
respondent in W.A.No.2863 of 2025, who was holding Ext.P1 stage
carriage permit on the route Ernakulam-Thalassery as Limited
Stop Fast-Passenger (LSFP) in respect of stage carriage bearing
Reg.No.KL-41/L-3487, which was valid for the period from
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 5 2026:KER:4097
31.12.2009 to 30.12.2014. The petitioner has filed the said writ
petition seeking the following reliefs;
"i. issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ,
order or direction to the Regional Transport Authority to
consider the applications for renewal of permit submitted
by the petitioner on the route Ernakulam - Guruvayoor -
Kozhikode - Thalassery as LSOS, untrammelled by Ext.P4
scheme dated published vide SRO No.537/2023 issued by
the Government and grant renewal of the permit as LSOS
without insisting the curtailment of the route length to less
than 140 Kms, without any delay.
ii. Issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the
Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to consider Ext.P5
application for temporary permit on the route Ernakulam -
Guruvayoor - Kozhikode - Thalassery as LSOS,
untrammelled by Ext.P4 scheme dated 03.05.2023
published vide SRO No.537/2023 issued by the
Government and grant and issue temporary permit to the
petitioner without insisting the curtailment of the route
length to less than 140 Kms till the disposal of the
application for renewal of permit."
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 Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation v. Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617] will continue
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 6 2026:KER:4097
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 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
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 7 2026:KER:4097
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
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. We heard detailed arguments of the learned Special
Government Pleader for the appellants in W.A.No.2863 of 2025,
the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC for the appellant in
W.A.No.2458 of 2025 and also the learned counsel for the party
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 8 2026:KER:4097
respondents in the respective writ appeals. The above writ appeals
were heard along with the connected writ appeals, i.e.,
W.A.Nos.2342 of 2025 and connected matters.
6. 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 filed
W.A.Nos.2342 of 2025 and connected matters, which were
disposed of by a common judgment dated 16.01.2026.
W.A.No.2348 of 2025 filed by KSRTC challenging the judgment
dated 01.08.2025 in W.P.(C)No.40312 of 2024 was also disposed
of by that judgment. W.A.No.2863 of 2025 filed by the Regional
Transport Authority, Vatakara and its Secretary arises out of the
judgment dated 01.08.2025 in W.P.(C)No.40312 of 2024.
7. By the common judgment dated 16.01.2026 in
W.A.No.2342 of 2025 and connected matters, the writ appeals
were disposed of by modifying the judgment dated 01.08.2025 of
the learned Single Judge to the extent indicated in paragraph 63
of that judgment and the concerned Regional Transport Authorities
were directed to consider the applications made by the writ
petitioners, who are holders of 'saved permits', strictly in terms of
the law laid down in that judgment, as expeditiously as possible,
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 9 2026:KER:4097
at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of that judgment, after affording them
an opportunity of being heard. Paragraphs 43 to 63 and also the
last paragraph of that judgment dated 16.01.2026 read thus;
'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 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
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 10 2026:KER:4097
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 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 conformity with the declaration made in
paragraph 15 of the decision.
46. In paragraph 15 of the decision in Mohankumar R.
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 11 2026:KER:4097
[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, 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
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 12 2026:KER:4097
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 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
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 13 2026:KER:4097
permits alone will be issued until the State Transport
Undertaking replaces with new services. The decision as to
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 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'
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 14 2026:KER:4097
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)
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
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 15 2026:KER:4097
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
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
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 16 2026:KER:4097
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. 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 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.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 17 2026:KER:4097
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.
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
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 18 2026:KER:4097
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 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
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 19 2026:KER:4097
Division Bench viewed that 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 Yes, the permits issued
are to be operated by the in the private sector on
State Transport or before 09.05.2006
Undertaking to the will be allowed to
exclusion of other continue till the dates
persons or otherwise: 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
portion thereof till
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 20 2026:KER:4097
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 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
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 21 2026:KER:4097
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 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
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 22 2026:KER:4097
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 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
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 23 2026:KER:4097
20.08.2015 was withdrawn, which was under challenge in
W.P.(C)No.11074 of 2020 and connected 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
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
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 24 2026:KER:4097
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 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], 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
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 25 2026:KER:4097
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
number of existing private stage carriage permits in the said
route, whose permits 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, whose permits
expire first after the filing of the application by KSRTC, shall
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 26 2026:KER:4097
not be renewed. 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, 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.'
8. In the above circumstances, W.A.No.2458 of 2025 is
disposed of in terms of the law laid down in the judgment dated
16.01.2026 in W.A.No.2342 of 2025 and connected matters, by
modifying the judgment dated 01.08.2025 of the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C)No.21198 of 2025 to the extent indicated in
paragraph 63 of the said judgment dated 16.01.2026. The
concerned Regional Transport Authority is directed to consider the
application made by the writ petitioner, who is the holder 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
W.A.Nos.2458 and 2863 of 2025 27 2026:KER:4097
judgment, after affording him an opportunity of being heard.
W.A.No.2863 of 2025, filed by the Regional Transport
Authority, Vatakara, and its Secretary, is disposed of in terms of
the directions contained in the judgment dated 16.01.2026 in
W.A.No.2348 of 2025 filed by KSRTC against the judgment dated
01.08.2025 in W.P.(C)No.40312 of 2024.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
bkn/-
