K.M. Joseph, J.

1. Appellant is the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. An application was filed by him for regular permit to operate service on the route Ernakulam High Court Junction - Manjapra which, according to him, has a distance of 59.5 k.ms. The said application was rejected by the 2nd respondent Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam vide Ext.P1 decision stating that as per clause 5(c) of the approved notification G.O.(P) No.42/Tran/09 dated 14/7/2009 the private stage carriages are permitted to overlap on the notified routes by 5% of their route length or 5 k.m. whichever is less and in this case the route length is 59.5 k.m. and hence the overlap exceeds the permissible limit. Against the said decision, the appellant filed appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. The Tribunal by Ext.P2 allowed the appeal and directed the 2nd respondent to grant fresh regular permit to the appellant as applied for, subject to settlement of timings. The writ petition was filed by the Corporation challenging Ext.P2 and for interdicting the operation of stage carriage service by the appellant on the route. The said writ petition was heard along with other writ petitions and the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the above, the appellant has approached this Court.

2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the Corporation and the learned Government Pleader.

3. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the Corporation setting aside Ext.P2 and ordered that the permit if any granted to the appellant in terms of Ext.P2 order is liable to be cancelled. The learned Single Judge also observed as follows:-

“..This apparently is a question of fact and to decide whether there is an overlapping of the permissible distance or route is purely within the discretion of the transport authority. If the transport authority has found that there is overlapping, in the absence of any material to show that such finding is perverse, I do not think that it would be open for the appellate authority or this Court for that reason to interfere with such findings. The very purpose of a scheme being brought into force is to regulate the operation of stage carriages by providing efficient management of public transport system. If private operators are permitted to operate in notified routes overlooking the scheme, it will not only affect the interest of the State undertaking, it will also give room for private operators to avoid other routes which are not notified. Therefore, a strict interpretation of the scheme is required to be made by the Transport authorities, the Tribunal and the Courts while exercising jurisdiction interfering with the orders passed by the concerned transport authorities. Reference is also made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Omaditya Verma (2005(4) SCC 424). It is held that once a scheme is notified it prohibits plying of private vehicle except as permitted by the Scheme. As matters stand now, a scheme is in operation and if the scheme provides for overlapping of a notified route for the purpose of intersection only to a limited extend, a strict interpretation of such a provision is required to be made. The tribunal or the court cannot grant any concession in that regard by stating that the overlapping is for the purpose of catering to a mofussil area or cannot form an opinion that it is not an objectionable overlapping though it exceeds the distance mentioned in the notification. Any distance which exceeds the permissible overlapping is objectionable. If the transport authorities have come to such a conclusion and has stated the actual distance of overlapping, in the absence of any other material it may not be possible for the court to take a different view.”

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would point out that the route in this case is Ernakulam High Court Junction - Manjapra an