Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking direction to respondents 1 to 3 to interdict the operation of stage carriages by the 4th respondent on the route Kollam-Chengannur without obtaining permits from the 1st respondent and the same having countersigned by the 3rd respondent, to declare that 1st respondent alone has the jurisdiction to grant permit on the notified route Kollam-Chengannur, also to declare that such grant of permit is to be countersigned by the 3rd respondent, and further to declare that neither the State Transport Authority nor the RTO (NS) has any jurisdiction to grant/issue any permit to the K.S.R.T.C. to conduct service on the non-notified route Kollam-Chengannur. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

2. First petitioner is a registered Association of stage carriage operators. Second petitioner is a member of the 1st petitioner Association and is holder of a regular permit in respect of vehicle bearing registration No.KL-02/AA-7475. The route Kollam-Chengannur via Anchalamoodu, Kundara, Chittumala & Bharanikavu is an inter-regional route traversing the districts of Kollam and Alappuzha. The total route length is 71 kms., out of which, 41 Kms. fall in Kollam District and 30 Kms. in Alappuzha District. The above route is not a notified route covered by any approved scheme of nationalization and therefore the provisions of Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] do not apply. Therefore, the State Transport Undertaking viz., the 4th respondent enjoys no special status or privilege vis-a-vis private operators in the matter of applying for and obtaining permits to operate stage carriages on the above route. In other words, K.S.R.T.C. and the private operators are governed by the provisions of Chapter V of the Act. Since major portion of the route lies in Kollam District, application for permit is to be submitted before the 1st respondent and any permit granted by the 1st respondent would have to be countersigned by the 3rd respondent under Sec.88 of the Act for validating the operation of the stage carriage in Alappuzha District.

3. Matters being so, in May, 2015, K.S.R.T.C. introduced 10 new stage carriages operating from Kollam to Chengannur and 5 stage carriages operating in the opposite direction. These services were introduced without obtaining permits from the 1st respondent. Thereupon, Ext.P1 complaint was submitted by the 1st petitioner before the 1st respondent and other authorities seeking immediate cessation of the illegal operation of service by the K.S.R.T.C. Accordingly, the matter was placed for consideration in the meeting of the 1st respondent held on 03.10.2015, evident from Ext.P2, and 1st respondent passed an order directing K.S.R.T.C. to submit applications for fresh regular permit with a proposed set of time schedule, evident from Ext.P3. It is contended that, 4th respondent is yet to comply with the above direction and even now continuing with illegal and unauthorized operation. In a reply given to the petitioners under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, 4th respondent admitted that five stage carriages enumerated in the said reply, are operating service on the route in question and none of the stage carriages are issued with permit from the 1st respondent, evident from Exts.P4 and P4(a). According to petitioners, information received as per Ext.P4(a), corroborated by the 2nd respondent in response to yet another query put by the 1st petitioner as per Ext.P4(b). Therefore, according to the petitioners, K.S.R.T.C. has taken law into their hands and is operating vehicles without taking permit in accordance with law as provided under the Act. It is in this background, this writ petition is filed.

4. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed a joint statement refuting the allegations and statements contained in the writ petition. That apart, it is contended that, 4th respondent has obtained permit