These writ petitions are filed praying for quashing the notification dated 06.05.2008 and for directing to consider and pass orders on the application for renewal of permit submitted by the petitioners, untrammelled by the aforesaid notification. In this judgment, facts as pleaded in W.P.(C) No. 15194 & 17813 of 2008 alone are referred and the exhibits referred to are in the order in which they are marked in W.P.(C)No.15194/2008.

2. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 15194/08 is the registered owner of stage carriage KL-5Q 4050, operating on the long distance inter-district route Kottayam-Banthadukka. Ext. P1 permit was originally granted to one Shaji Kuruvilla and was valid for the period from 19.1996 to 19.2001 and was subsequently renewed for a further period of 5 years upto 19.2006. In the meanwhile, with effect from 16.4.1998 the permit was transferred to the petitioner. Petitioner sought renewal of the permit for a further period of 5 years by submitting his application as early as on 10.6.2005. Since orders renewing the permit have not been passed, petitioner was operating his service on the strength of temporary permits issued under Section 87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the last of which is Ext. P2, valid till 35.2008. As the period of Ext. P2 was expiring, petitioner submitted Ext. P3 application for temporary permit, but however, the 4th respondent is refusing to consider Ext. P3 since the petitioner had not submitted a no objection certificate from the 2nd respondent, K.S.R.T.C. It is stated that according to the 4th respondent, in view of the finalised scheme published vide Ext. P5 notification dated 6.5.2008 issued under Section 100 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) renewal of permit, either regular or temporary, can be granted only on obtaining an NOC from the KSRTC, the State Transport Undertaking.

3. Thecontentions urged is that the 1st respondent, exercising its power under Section 99 of the Act read with Rule 236 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, for short) had published Ext.P4, a proposal on 9.5.2007 relating to 31 routes in the State in supersession of the existing notification in relation to those enumerated routes. Clauses 4, 5 and 19 of the schedule to Ext. P4 being relevant, are extracted below for reference:

TABLE

It is stated that while the proposal published, was as above, on 6.5.2008 the 1st respondent published the approved scheme, as required under Section 100(3) of the Act. Clauses 4, 5 and 19 of Ext. P5 being relevant, are extracted below for reference:

TABLE

4. It is contended that clauses 4, and 19 of Ext. P5 presents a clear departure from the corresponding clauses in Ext. P4 proposal. According to counsel, while Ext. P4 envisaged saving and retention of all permits which existed on or prior to 18.4.2007, Ext. P5 provides for continuation of permits issued prior to a still anterior date, viz., 9.5.2006 and that too, only as a temporary measure. It is also contended that the renewal of the said permits would again be subject to obtaining a no objection certificate from the KSRTC as and when application for renewal of permit is considered. It is submitted and that all permits granted between the period from 9.5.2006 to 18.4.2007 would be liable to be terminated on the expiry of its validity without any renewal. According to the petitioner this has been done without any notice to the permit holders.

.5. Similarly in so far as clause 19 of Ext. P5 is concerned, it is stated that this provision confers on the KSRTC an absolute discretion to pick and choose any private operator and demand on his vacating the route while at the same time ensuring continuance of other favoured persons. It is contended that though the replacement is to be made following the principle last come first go, in view of the insistence of the no objection of the KSRTC for renewal of permits, the power conferred is arbitrary and