IMPORTANT POINT
A temporary permit cannot be issued to a private stage carriage operator to traverse on the notified route which is being served by the State Transport Undertaking (STU), in excess of the permissible distance provided under the scheme.

Headnote:(a) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 99, 100 and 104, Proviso – Scheme partially excluding private stage carriage operators on the notified route – Private operator permitted to ply only on 5km or 5% of the route whichever is less – Instantly respondent no.1 plying on 13 km, i.e., 59%, of notified route whereas permissible overlap is only 1.4 km – Not permissible – STU rightly objecting – Inconvenience of travelling public, if at all, a matter to be considered by authorities before finalising the scheme. (Para 20, 21)
       (1985) 4 SCC 557; (1997) 1 SCC 650; (1997) 3 SCC 191 – Relied upon
       (b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 104, Proviso – Proviso cannot be read in isolation of the main section – The scheme is a law by itself – Cannot be circumvented to obtain permits – New route cannot be introduced by fusing a non-notified route with the notified route to seek a temporary permit on a carved out route – Respondent 1 carving out a new route overlapping 13 km of notified route – Not permissible – RTA rightly rejecting claim of the respondent no.1 seeking temporary permit on the notified route. (Para 25, 26, 27)
       (1976) 1 SCC 128 – Relied upon
       (c) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 104, Proviso – Proviso also subject to the scheme – Overlap of 5 km or 5% allowed only for intersection – Distinction between overlapping and intersection – Total exclusion of private stage carriage operators for a notified route under the “Scheme” except for “intersecting” – Not open for the authorities to grant permits to private stage carriage operators to operate on the notified route except merely to intersect within permissible limits – An intersection is permissible, an overlap is not. (Para 28, 29, 30)
       (1974) 2 SCC 750; (2002) 2 SCC 560 – Relied upon
       (2010) 5 SCC 235 – Distinguished
       (d) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Introduction of documents for the first time in Supreme Court just two days before final arguments – Not permissible. (Para 33)
       (e) Administration of justice – Doctrine of merger – STAT directing RTA to exercise its power under the proviso to Section 104, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – RTA passing order accordingly – Supreme Court setting aside STAT order – Hence order passed by RTA in pursuance of STAT order held illegal – Temporary permit granted by the RTA in favour of respondent no.1 set aside. (Para 36)
       Facts of the case:
       The route of Kottayam-Kozhikode was made a notified route under a scheme framed u/s 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Clause 4 of the said Scheme inter alia provides that the services to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking along the notified route were to the exclusion of private stage carriages operating in the said route. Meaning thereby that the services to be operated by the STU along the notified route were to the exclusion of private stage carriages if the STU operates on the same route.
       Clauses 5(c) and 6 of the aforementioned Scheme provide that private services would be allowed to pick up and drop passengers between any two places on the route covered by the Scheme, if and only if the route of the private stage carriage overlaps the notified route maximum to an extent of 5 kms or 5% of the length of its own route (whichever is less) for purposes of intersection.
       The respondent no.1 (namely Baby P.P contesting respondent in all these appeals), a private stage carriage operator, submitted an application seeking a temporary permit under the proviso to Section 104 of the Act to run services for the route Pallissery-Angamaly-Perumbavoor. The total length of this route applied for by respondent no. 1 is 28 kms. The RTA rejected the application filed by the respondent no.1 stating, inter alia, that part of the route applied for by the respondent no.1 from Angamaly to Perumbavoor is 13 kms in length and it objectionably overlaps with the notified route of Kottayam-Kozhikode beyond the permissible limit as contemplated by the Scheme dated 14.07.2009.
       The appellant herein approached the High Court. Respondent no. 1, a private stage carriage operator, filed O.P.(C). Another private stage carriage operator, also filed O.P.(C). All these O.Ps. were heard together and came to be dismissed .
       The issue before Supreme Court in these appeals is as under:
       Under the facts of this case, is it open for a private stage carriage operator (Respondent No.1) to operate the services overlapping more than 5 kms or 5% of the route of the private stage carriage operator (as specified under the Scheme) for the purpose of traversing by overlapping on the notified route which is being served by the STU, but not for purposes of intersection?
       Finding of the Court:
       Temporary permit granted by the RTA in favour of respondent no.1 is illegal.
       Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 02.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in O.P.(C) No. 1827 of 2017, O.P.(C) No. 1784 of 2017 and O.P.(C) No. 581 of 2017 dismissing the writ petitions and consequently confirming the order dated 11.01.2017 passed by respondent no.5 herein, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘STAT’) in M.V.A.R.P No. 53 of 2016. Therein, the STAT had held that the Regional Transport Authority under the facts of the case, may exercise power conferred on it by the proviso to Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) to grant temporary permits.

3. The State of Kerala vide G.O. (P) No.42/2009/Tran. dated 14.07.2009 notified a new scheme in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 100 of the Act for the purpose of providing convenient, adequate, economical, and properly coordinated passenger road transport services. As per the said Scheme, the route of Kottayam-Kozhikode was made a notified route. Clause 4 of the said Scheme interalia provides that the services to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as ‘STU’) along the notified route were to the exclusion of private stage carriages operating in the said route. Clause 4 of the said Scheme reads thus:

“4.

Whether the services are to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking to the exclusion of other persons or otherwise.

Yes, the permits issued in the private sector on or before 9.5.2006 will be allowed to continue till the 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 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.”

4. From the aforementioned clause, 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 STU 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 STU, shall not be renewed. Meaning thereby, the services to be operated by the STU along the notified route were to the exclusion of private stage carriages if the STU operates on the same route. If the STU has not applied for a permit, then the permits issued in the private sector prior to 09.05.2006 will continue until the date of expiry, following which regular permits will be granted. The temporary permits issued after 09.05.2006, on the notified route would be in operation, only until the STU operates on the same route with new services. Clauses 5(c) and 6 of the Scheme read thus:

“5 (c)

Whether it is proposed to allow other services to pick up or set down passengers between any two places on the route covered by the scheme.

Yes, on the portion of the route permitted to operate as in clause 4 above. Permits will also be granted to private stage carriages of other routes permitting them

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

“5 (c)	Whether it is proposed to allow other services to pick up or set down passengers between any two places on the route covered by the scheme.	Yes, on the portion of the route permitted to operate as in clause 4 above. Permits will also be granted to private stage carriages of other routes permitting them

2018 Supreme(SC) 481

IMPORTANT POINTA temporary permit cannot be issued to a private stage carriage operator to traverse on the notified route which is being served by the State Transport Undertaking (STU), in excess of the permissible distance provided under the scheme.

Cases Referred (7)

IMPORTANT POINT
A temporary permit cannot be issued to a private stage carriage operator to traverse on the notified route which is being served by the State Transport Undertaking (STU), in excess of the permissible distance provided under the scheme.