1. Predominant common question arising in these cases is whether a temporary permit to ply a stage carriage with an overlapping sector greater than permitted by a nationalization scheme be granted to a private bus operator?

2. Considering commonality in the issues and identity of the parties, all these cases were heard together. O.P.(C) No.1827 of 2017 filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, “KSRTC”) is taken as the leading case. 4th respondent in the above petition is the petitioner in O.P.(C) No.581 of 2017. Petitioner in O.P.(C) No.1784 does not figure in the leading case. But, he is impleaded as additional 7th respondent in O.P.(C) No.581 of 2017.

3. All the petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P5 order dated 11.01.2017 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (in short, “STAT”) in M.V.A.R.P.No.53 of 2016.

4. Relevant short facts are thus: KSRTC is a State Transport Undertaking (in short, “STU”) established under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act. 1st respondent filed an application for a temporary permit under the proviso to Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, “the Act”) through a route, Pallissery-Perumbavoor. Total route length is 28 kms. Out of which a portion of 13 kms. From Perumbavoor-Angamaly objectionably overlaps Kottayam-Kozhikode route notified vide G.O.(P) No.42/2009/Tran. dated 14.07.2009 (Ext.P8). 1st respondent's application for a temporary permit was rejected by the 2nd respondent, stating that the proviso to Section 104 of the Act is not applicable to the said route. Ext.P1 is the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Against Ext.P1, 1st respondent filed M.V.A.R.P.No.53 of 2016 before the STAT. Copy of the petition is produced as Ext.P2. KSRTC filed objection in Ext.P2 petition, which is marked as Ext.P3. After considering the objection, STAT dismissed the interim application for a temporary permit as per Ext.P4 order. Subsequently, the matter was heard by the STAT and the revision petition was allowed in part, remanding the case to the 2nd respondent with certain observations. That order is Ext.P5, which is impugned in the petitions. Consequent to the directions in Ext.P5, the 2nd respondent allowed the application by the 1st respondent for a temporary permit by order dated 23.02.2017(Ext.P6).

5. KSRTC contended that as a matter of fact they are conducting large number of trips through the notified route Angamaly-Perumbavoor. Details of the services operated through Angamaly-Perumbavoor have been produced as Ext.P7. Later, Ext.P8 has been modified by the Government as per Ext.P9 order.

6. Petitioner in O.P.(C) No.1784 of 2017 also challenged the grant of a temporary permit in favour of the 1st respondent. It is the contention of the petitioners in O.P.(C) Nos.1784 of 2017 and 581 of 2017 that one Jolly Thomas was holding a regular permit on the route Pallissery-Perumbavoor for a stage carriage No.KL-08/K 7025 and it was valid till 05.06.2010. The permit holder surrendered the permit on 28.04.2007 and obtained a clearance certificate. Suppressing these facts Jolly Thomas filed an application for renewal of the permit. By contending that his application for permit was pending, he secured temporary permits continuously. Jolly Thomas's application for regular permit was rejected by the RTA. 1st respondent is a henchman of Jolly Thomas. Contention raised by the 1st respondent that no service is operating on the route Pallissery-Angamaly-Perumbavoor by the KSRTC and other private operators and therefore the travelling public are put to difficulties is untrue. In fact, the petitioner in O.P.(C) No.1784 of 2017 himself is a regular permit holder operating service through Pallissery-Perumbavoor. Ext.P5 order is legally unsustainable.

7. Petitioner in O.P.(C) No.581 of 2017 also strongly challenged the maintainability of Ext.P5. He is a regular stage carriage permit holder operating on the route Perumbavoor-Poothamkutty. According t