This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P7 order passed by the 1st respondent, Regional Transport Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 04.08.2017, by which fresh permit sought for by the petitioner in the vacancy of permit bearing No.C13/18/T/1995 on the route Thiruvallam - Nettayam is rejected, and consequentially the said route is granted to the KSRTC. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

2. Petitioner is a member of scheduled caste and he is a member and activist of Trivandrum District Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Motor Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. Among 100 permits allowed in Thiruvananthapuram City for private operators as per Sec.71(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, 'the Act, 1988'], certain permits are reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as per Sec.71(3)(b) and (c) of the Act. Accordingly, the permit on the route Thiruvallam - Nettayam was granted in favour of the above specified Co-operative Society. The permit so issued on 30.06.1995 was renewed from time to time, and was valid up to 29.06.2015.

3. The aforesaid service operated by the society defaulted and garaged the vehicle due to mechanical defects. When the route became vacant, petitioner who is a member of the society along with 5 other members, also belonging to the Scheduled Caste community purchased a stage carriage with Registration No.KL-01/Z 678, and applied for substitute temporary permit in the above vacancy, and in the meanwhile, temporary permit was granted and was conducting service on the above said route till 16.03.2017, evident from Ext.P4. While so, the renewal application submitted by the society has been considered on 16.01.2016 and adjourned for detailed enquiry with regard to the functioning of the society. The said application was finally considered by the 1st respondent on 24.01.2017 and the same was rejected, holding that the society is incapable of carrying on the stage carriage service and requested the District Planning Officer, Collectorate to constitute a Committee and take over the stage carriage service, however, the said scheming did not work out, evident from Ext.P5 proceedings of the 1st respondent.

4. According to the petitioner, regular permit in question is one reserved for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes quota and the benefit extended by the statute with the rights conferred by the Constitution cannot be denied to them in any manner. Thereupon, the petitioner who is a member of the Scheduled Caste society, and who is having a ready vehicle, claiming with sufficient operational skill and experience on the very same route for the past more than one year, submitted application for grant of regular permit in the above vacancy, by way of regularization. However, the 1st respondent by Ext.P7 rejected the application of the petitioner, and consequently granted permit to the 3rd respondent.

5. It is submitted by the petitioner that, Ext.P7 order passed by the 1st respondent amounts to infringement of Article 46 of the Constitution of India. Section 71(3) of the Act, 1988, postulates that once the number of permits are limited by way of notification under Sec.71(3) of the Act, 1988, among such permits, certain percentage, as in the case of appointments made by direct recruitment to public service have to be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The application of the 3rd respondent is not maintainable since the permit in question is reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. A benefit extended or approved to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community by the Constitution cannot be denied by treating the grant of permit as a new permit in any manner. Other legal contentions are also raised based on the provisions of the Constitution of India. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner is entitled to get regularization of the permit in the specified defaulted vacancy.

6. Seco