The main legal point established in the judgment is that contract carriage permits can be granted for a route covered by a notified scheme for mofussil service only, as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.

These three Original Petitions are filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'.

2. The challenge by the Corporation is against the order of the State Transport Authority, Kerala granting permits/counter-signature in favour of the contesting respondents to operate contract carriages in interstate route covering nationalised routes in Kerala State and the common judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam (Ext. P5 in O.P. 4679 of 1994) confirming the order of the State Transport Authority.

3. The contesting respondents applied for grant of permits/ counter signature of the permits granted by other State Transport Authority. Those were objected to before the S.T.A. by the K.S.R.T.C. as is seen from Ext. P4 in O.P. 4679 of 1994, on the ground that contract carriage permit cannot be granted on a particular route. The contention was not accepted by the State Transport Authority. Accordingly, the State Transport Authority either granted the permit or affixed the counter-signature. This gave rise to several revisions by the Corporation before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal considered all the revision petitions and disposed of them by Ext. P5 in O.P. 4679 of 1994, upholding the order of the S.T.A. A reading of the common judgment reveals that in addition to the ground taken by the Corporation before the S.T.A. a further ground with regard to the exclusion of private operators in the area/route concerned on the basis of a notified scheme was also taken up before the Tribunal. Both the contentions were examined by the Tribunal and the revision petitions were dismissed as per the common judgment. It is in the above circumstances, the Corporation has approached this Court with these writ petitions.

4. Before-me also, the self same two contentions are urged namely,(i) no contract carriage permit can be granted in respect of a particular route and (ii) no contract carriage permit can be granted as portion of the route as covered by a notified scheme to the exclusion of private operators.

5. 'Contract carriage' is defined in S.2(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) as follows:

"Contract carriage" means a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward and is engaged under a contract, whether expressed or implied, for the use of such vehicle as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned therein and entered into by a person with a holder of a permit in relation to such vehicle or any person authorised by him in this behalf on a fixed or an agreed rate ".

The grant of such permit is governed by S.74. Clause (i) to sub-s.(2) provides that the Authority granting permit shall attach to the permit a condition that "the vehicle shall be used only in a specified area or on a specified route or routes". This makes it clear that a contract carriage permit can be granted for a route as well. Therefore, the first contention raised by the counsel does not have any legal basis in the light of the express position in the statute itself.

6. The next is, whether grant of contract carriage permits is excluded by reason of the notified Scheme? A portion of the routes in question is covered by the notified scheme is not disputed before me by the contesting respondents. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that S.103(2) of the Act provides for a total exclusion of application for permits by any reason other than the Corporation for the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme in respect of a notified area or route or any part thereof. It is also pointed out that the Section does not make any differentiation between application for grant of contract carriage permit or stage carriage permit. In such case, when there is an approved scheme, the State Transport Authority should not have granted permit to the contesting respondents even to operate contract carriages along the route covered by