Kerala State Road Transport Employees Assn. vs State of Kerala and Others

D. Sreedevi, J.—Petitioners have filed this Original Petition for the following reliefs:

a) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction which this Court deems fit to make in the circumstances of the case quashing Ext. P12 order;

b) to issue a writ, order or direction prohibiting to grant of permits to private operators in the areas/routes notified under Schemes approved by section 68(d)(3) of the M.V. Act, 1939 except in accordance with the provisions contained in the Schemes approved by the 1st respondent in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Sec. 68(D)(2) of the M.V. Act, 1939 as long as those Schemes are in force;

c) to grant any other reliefs which this Court deems fit to make in the circumstances; and

d) to grant costs to the petitioners.

The first petitioner is the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Employees Association, represented by N.V. Balakrishnan, Vice President of the said Association. The second petitioner is an employee of the K.S.R.T.C. By notification in the official gazette, the State established the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, fully owned by the Government of Kerala. The Managing Director is the Executive Head of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation/Under Sec. 68(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the second respondent prepared various Schemes for the purpose of providing efficient, economic, adequate and properly co-ordinated transport services. The Scheme was published in the official gazette. By Exts. P2 to P11, the Schemes of various routes were published in the gazette. They were approved by the first respondent, after hearing objections of parties. Those notified schemes are still in force. The first respondent has decided to issue permits to private operators in the nationalised routes, when the K.S.R.T.C. is not in a position to operate reasonably adequate number of buses. It has also been decided to restore and continue private buses that are running on such routes, copy of the order is Ext. P12. The petitioners'' complaint is that various Regional Transport Authorities and State Transport Authority are taking steps to issue temporary permits to private operators to run and operate their vehicles through the routes, for which the schemes providing complete exclusion of private operators have been approved by the first respondent. The first petitioner has stated that representing the workmen employed in the K.S.R.T.C., the second respondent has established required number of workshops, bus stations etc., to serve the notified routes. The second respondent is also running the required number of buses through the notified routes, catering fully to the requirements of the travelling public. According to them, if private operators are allowed to run and operate their services through the notified routes, there will not be any properly co-ordinated transport service and it will be against the public interest. Therefore, the petitioners challenge Ext. P12 on the ground that the said order is illegal.

Admittedly by Exts. P2 to P11 notifications various routes were nationalised and the first respondent decided to issue permits to private operators in those nationalised routes, when K.S.R.T.C. is not in a position to operate adequate number of buses. Ext. P12 is the order. This order is challenged by the petitioners on the ground that when a route is nationalised under Chap. IV-A of the Act, the grant of permit to private operators is invalid. For this the Learned Counsel relied on the decisions reported in Adarsh Travels Bus Service and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, and U.P. State Roadways Transport Corpn., Lucknow through its General Manager Vs. Anwar Ahmed and Others, . The Apex Court in U.P.S.R.T. Corporation v. Anwar Ahmed, (1997) 3 SCC 191, held as follows:

Once the scheme has been approved and notified, 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. By virtue of Sec. 104 the appellant Corporation has the exclusive right or monopoly to ply their stage carriages and obtain the required permit as per the scheme".

In Adarsh Travels Bus Service and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , the Apex Court held as follows:

A perusal of S. 68C, Sec. 68D(3) and S. 68FF in the light of the definition of the expression ''route'' in Sec. 2(28A) appears to make it manifestly clear that once a scheme is published under Sec. 68D in relation to any area or route or portion thereof, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial of other persons or otherwise, no person other than the State Transport Undertaking may operate on the notified area or notified route except as provided in the Scheme itself. A necessary consequence of these 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 by notified route or area.

In the light of the above decision, the respondents are not entitled to issue permits to private operators in the notified areas. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get an order as prayed for.

In the result, this Original Petition is allowed. Ext. P2 order is quashed by a writ of certiorari. The respondents are directed not to grant permits to private operators in the areas notified under the Schemes approved under Sec. 68D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, except in accordance with the Schemes approved by the first respondent in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec. 68D(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. There will be no order as to costs.