(2013) 300 KLR 932

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2013/12TH CHAITHRA 1935

WP(C).No. 10736 of 2011 (N)

----------------------------

PETITIONER(S):

--------------------------

1. A.ARAVINDAN, VASANTHALAYAM, THAMARAKKULAM, KOLLAM-01.

2. LAWRENCE BABU, GENERAL SECRETARY, QUILON DISTRICT PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM-01.

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLAM-691001.

2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM-691001.

3. A.SALIM, BRAHMANAZHIKOM, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM-691008.

4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM-682011.

R, BY ADV. SRI.O.D SIVADAS R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M SANEER

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-04- 2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10736 of 2011 (N)

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

1. EXT.P1 COPY OF AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT HELD ON 22-6-2010
2. EXT,P2 COPY OF AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT HELD ON 8-12-2010
3. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 13-12-2010 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERING
4. EXT.P3(A) COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY the 2ND PETITIONER DATED 8-12- 2010
5. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF the 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 8-12-2010
6. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN MVAA NO.54/2011
7. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25-2-2011 IN MVAA NO.54/2011
8. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3-1-2007 IN W.P.C NO.90/2007
9. EXT.P8 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3-1-2007 IN W.PC. NO.90/2007
10. EXT.P9 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16-9-2004 IN W.A NO.1702/2004

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

1. NIL

TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE SMM

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

= = = = = = = = = = =

W.P.(C) No.10736 of 2011

= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = =

Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2013

Head Note:-

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Section 80 - Grant of permit - The mere fact that there is a saturation of service is no ground to refuse permits. The rival operators have no right to challenge the grant of permit to another.

J U D G M E N T

The principal ground on which the Regional Transport Authority declined fresh regular permit to the third respondent is that 'the road portion from Elampalloor to Punnamukku is not wide enough to accommodate new stage carriage services'. This is presumably on the basis of Ext.P3 report of the Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Division that the road has no strength to bear additional heavy load. The decision of the Regional Transport Authority has rightly been set at naught by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in appeal.

2. The road is wide enough for the third respondent to operate his service if the same is wide enough for the petitioners to operate their service. Additional heavy load could be brought on the road only if the buses are permitted to operate at the same time and spot with a clash of timings. The mere fact that there is a saturation of service is no ground to refuse permits as has been held in Mithilesh Garg vs. Union of India(AIR 1992 Supreme Court 443)

3. It is also extremely doubtful as to whether the first petitioner who is a rival operator and the second petitioner who is the Secretary of an Operator's Association have locus standi to maintain this writ petition. The rival operators have no right to challenge the grant of permit to another as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1996 of 2007 and 62 of 2012. The Association has at any rate no locus standi to challenge either Ext.P4 decision of the Regional Transport Authority or Ext.P6 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. They call for no interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE

smm