The main legal point established in the judgment is that temporary permits can be granted over notified routes until the State Transport Corporation applies for permits, as per the proviso to Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

P. Bhavadasan, J.

1. The petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 28386 of 2008 and W.P.(C) No. 29984 of 2008 seek review of the judgment in W.A. No. 1270 of 2009 and other connected cases, which were disposed of on 1.12.2009.

2. The matter related to grant of permits u/s 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act. A learned Single Judge of this Court had while disposing of a batch of writ petitions raising similar contentions observed as follows:

For these reasons, I am of the view that the issue requires reconsideration by the Regional Transport Authority. Accordingly, the writ petition [W.P.(C) No. 28386/08] is allowed in part. Exts.P5 and P9 are set aside. The application for re-issue of Temporary Permits submitted by the petitioner herein shall be considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in this judgment, after notice to the petitioners as well as the 4th respondent Corporation. Fresh orders shall be passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as KSRTC) came up in appeal before this Court in various Writ Appeals. Their main grievance was that the routes, through which the petitioners sought temporary permits were notified routes, they touched two intermediate points and also that they fell within the Scheme. There was a total prohibition, which prevented the authorities concerned from issuing any sort of permit to anyone other than KSRTC. This Court, accepted the contention put forward by the KSRTC and allowed the writ appeals setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petitions.

3. In these review petitions, it is pointed out that while the writ appeals were being considered, it was omitted to refer to the proviso to Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which enables the authorities concerned to grant temporary permits over notified routes till the State Transport Corporation applies for permit over those routes. It is pointed out that it is not in dispute that the routes through which the writ petitioners seek permit are also notified routes and also that there is no case for the KSRTC that they had applied for permit for these routes. According to the review petitioners, even if the route is a notified one, and also the routes over which they seek permits pass through two or more intermediate points, till the State Transport Corporation applies, it is possible for the authorities to grant temporary permits. The review petitioners say that it is not disputed that currently the State Transport Corporation has not applied for permits over the routes, through which temporary permits are sought. It is conceded that once the STC applies, the temporary permits cease to be in force. The above aspect, according to them, was not taken note of by the Division Bench of this court while pronouncing the judgment in the Writ Appeals, and that is an error apparent on the face of the record. In support of their contention that it may be possible to grant temporary permits, they relied on the judgment in W.A. 188 of 1986 of this Court and also the decision reported in Punjab Roadways Moga through its General Manager Vs. Punja Sahib Bus and Transport Co. and Others etc. etc., .

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the KSRTC contended that no error has been committed by this Court in allowing the writ appeals and dismissing the writ petitions. The routes over which the petitioners seek temporary permits admittedly touch two intermediate points and it is a notified route. According to the learned Counsel, along the notified routes only the KSRTC can seek permit for plying the vehicles. Therefore, it is contended that the review petitions are without merits and they are liable to be dismissed.

5. It is true that the proviso to Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not referred to in the dec