K.M. Joseph, J.

1. The appellants filed this appeal on the basis of leave granted by the Court. As stage carriage operators, they are operating on the route. Permits were granted in the name of the writ petitioners. On joint applications under Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988(hereinafter referred to as the Act for short), the permits were transferred by the writ petitioners to the appellants during the pendency of the writ petition. The writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No.5819/2008, from which the appeal arises, filed the writ petition challenging Ext.P9 which is a common judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowing the revision petitions filed by the KSRTC and cancelling the permits issued to the writ petitioners. The Tribunal found that the permits granted to the writ petitioners violated the Aluva - Vadakkumpuram, a complete exclusion scheme, as the proposed route overlaps the route under the complete exclusion scheme. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition and took the following view;

“3. W.P.(C) No. 5819/2008 is also filed challenging Ext.P9 order of the STAT in M.V.A.R.P. No. 527 and 528 of 2007 filed by KSRTC challenging the grant of regular permit to the private operators on the ground that it violates the notified route between North Parur - Aluva(via) Vedimara, Thekkethazham Engineering College, Manakkappady, Parappilly Kavu temple, Millupady, Kottappuram, U.C. College, East Kadungallur and Thottekkattukara. According to KSRTC the route overlaps Aluva - Vadakkumpuram where there is a complete exclusion as per the Government order dated 17/10/1965. The STATE formed an opinion that as per Aluva - Vhadakkumbhagam scheme is concerned there is a complete exclusion which does not permit overlapping of any portion of the notified route and therefore grant of permit in the case was illegal and directed it to be cancelled and the impugned permit is recalled. In this case also there was an interim stay operation of the judgment. The period of the regular permit expired on 15/10/2012. Therefore, the decision in this case is also academic. “

The complaint of the appellants is that the learned Single Judge has not examined the merits of the matter and dismissed the writ petition on the said basis.

2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants Sri.P. Deepak, the learned counsel Sri.P.C.Chacko on behalf of the KSRTC and Sri.C.R.Syamkumar learned Government Pleader.

3. Sri.Deepak would make essentially two submissions. It is firstly contended that the Aluva – Vadakkumpuram scheme is not a complete exclusion scheme. The next contention is that if it is found that it is a complete exclusion scheme, the said scheme is no longer good law by virtue of the principle of desuetude.

4. In regard to the first contention, it is pointed out that there was an earlier scheme in the year 1961, which is produced as Ext.P4. The said scheme was notified under the provisions of the Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, wherein it is provided inter alia as against the question of routes in relation to which the scheme is proposed-----------. “Routes as indicated in Annexure A and all routes connecting or passing in two or more intermediate places of such routes.” In Annexure A of the said scheme, as against the first route, which is Ernakulam - Muvattupuzha, the intermediate places are noted as Tripunithura, Thiruvankulam, Puthencruz, Valagom. The second route is Ernakulam - Thiruvankulam. The intermediate places are shown as in the case of Ernakulam - Muvattupuzha, route upto Thiruvankulam. The next route is Ernakulam - Tripunithura. The intermediate places are shown as the same as in regard to Ernakulam Muvattupuza up to Tripunithura. There is also item No.6 which is Aluva- Parur route. Therein the intermediate places are shown as UC College, Thattampady, Mannam, Parur. Aluva - Chendamangalm route is item No. 7, wherein intermediate places are the same. It is thereafter, in 1965 that is on 17/6/1965