Dismissed

The K.S.R.T.C v. the Rta, Kottayam

Kerala HC7 Dec 2011WP(C)/25879/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation filed a writ petition challenging a Tribunal order granting a stage carriage permit to a respondent due to alleged route overlaps. The High Court held that the overlap was negligible and necessary for bus station access. Despite reservations, the court dismissed the petition, clarifying the Tribunal's reliance on a Karnataka precedent is not binding.

What did the court decide?

No relief; the petition challenging the permit grant is dismissed.

The K.S.R.T.C Vs the Rta, Kottayam — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 25879 of 2010 (H)

¶6

MVARP.261/2009 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

BY ADVS.SHRI P.BENJAMIN PAUL,SC, KSRTC SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KOTTAYAM PIN 686 001

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY

¶13

RTA, KOTTAYAM PIN 686 001

¶14

3. SHEREEF K.A, DAHAHRA MANSIL ILLIKKAL, KILIROOR PO, KOTTAYAM PIN 686 001

¶15

4. ASHOK KORA ABRAHAM, VADAKKOTTH HOUSE, KOTTAYAM PO, PIN 686 001

¶16

R,R1&2. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RANI DIOTHIMA R,R3 BY SRI.P.DEEPAK R4 BY SRI . E. DINESH MENON

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-12-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 25879 of 2010 (H)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITONERS EXHIBITS

¶21

P1 COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 26-04-2010 OF THE STAT IN MVARP IS 261/2009 AND 31-3-2009

¶22

P2 COPY OF THE REPLY NO. 7891/2009-K. DATED 19-1-2010 ISSUED BY PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER RTO, KOTTAYAM

¶23

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

SMM

C.K. ABDUL REHIM,J.

¶28

WP (C)No. 25879 OF 2010

¶29

Dated this the 7^th day of December , 2011

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) is challenging Ext.P1, a common order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam (STAT), to the extent it dismissed Revision Petition (M.V.A.R.P. 313/2009) filed by the petitioner. The Revision in question was filed against an order of the Regional Transport Authority (Kottayam) granting regular stage carriage permit to the 3^rd respondent to operate on the route Kanjiram Jetty - Chengalathukavu , via Illickal, Thiruvathukkal, Karapuzha, Kottayam ,Aruthootty , Alummood, Avarupura, and Chengalathukavu, as town service. The decision of the R.T.A was challenged on the ground that the proposed route overlaps Kottayam-Neendoor complete exclusion scheme, apart from that it overlaps Kottayam-Kozhikode supplementation scheme covered by SRO 608 of 2009

¶32

WP (C)No. 25879 OF 2010 2

¶33

dated 14-07-2009. But the STAT found that the KottayamNeendoor complete exclusion scheme is applicable only to moffusil services , where as the permit in question is granted as a town service in Kottayam. In this regard KSRTC raised contention that no town service is notified in Kottayam as required under Rule 2(ca) of the KMV Rules. But STAT found that since Kottayam is a municipal town, any service which satisfies the definition of Rule 2(ca) can be granted as town service. Further the STAT found that on a perusal of a route map it is evident that the route in question is traversing the notified route only at 1.1 Km. because it is necessary to have access to the bus station in the town. Referring to the decision of the High Court of Karnataka, in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (I.L.R.1996 KAR) 770 it is held that such overlapping can be permitted . With respect to overlapping of KottayamKozhikode notified route, referring to clause 5(c) of the said notification, the STAT observed that the overlapping of a

¶34

WP (C)No. 25879 OF 2010 3

¶35

notified route not exceeding 5% of the proposed route length is permitted. It was also found that the overlapping is exceeding 5% only to a minimum distance of 350 mts. There also the overlapping became necessary only to have access to the town and to enter the bus station . On the basis of the above aspects, the STAT found that the objection raised by the KSRTC against the grant of the permit is devoid of merits.

¶36

2. Contention in the writ petition is to the effect that the Tribunal was not justified in stretching the distance provision for justifying overlapping. It is also contended that the reliance placed on the decision of the Karnataka High Court is not sustainable. Considering the facts and circumstances, it is realised that the alleged overlapping became necessitate only to facilitate entry of the stage carriage into the town Bus Stand. The alleged overlapping is only with respect to a negligible distance. Even though I am not fully convinced of sustainability of the legal position, I am not inclined to interfere in exercises of the

¶37

WP (C)No. 25879 OF 2010 4

¶38

decretionary jurisdiction vested on this court, considering the facts and circumstances prevailing. This court is not sitting in appeal or revision against the order of the STAT. No substantial prejudice will be caused to the petitioner due to the alleged overlapping which is highly minimum in distance. Hence I am not satisfied that there exists any circumstances warranting interference. However, I clarify that the principle relied on by the STAT in the impugned judgment shall not be treated as precedent in other case.

¶39

Therefore the writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations contained here in above.

¶40

C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE

¶41

¶42

WP (C)No. 25879 OF 2010 5

¶43

WP (C)No. 25879 OF 2010 6

The K.S.R.T.C v. the Rta, Kottayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The K.S.R.T.C v. the Rta, Kottayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Secretary, Industries Department Vs I.F.C.I

K.Rajalakshmi Amma Vs the Tahasildar

Krishna Swamy Vs Greater Cochin Development Authority

Poomangalam Grama Panchayath Vs the Tribunal for Local Self Govt

The Chairman, Rajadhani Institute of Vs University of Kerala

Balachandran & Another Vs the District Collector,Alappuzha & Anr.