IMPORTANT POINT
Both the terminals of the proposed route Aluva and Panangad is situate 5 kms away from the Cochin Corporation city limit.

JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.12.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 36252 of 2015.

2. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that nothing survives in this appeal for further adjudication.

3. On the other hand, Sri. P.C. Chacko, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Corporation submitted that the issue is squarely covered, in favour of the appellant by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Baby reported in 2018(2) KLT 974.

4. Short facts leading to the writ appeal are as follows:

The first respondent is the owner of a stage carriage bearing Registration No. KL-07/R 5599. Earlier, permit was issued to conduct service on Aluva-Panangad route as city service. The vehicle has subsequently defaulted. Therefore, he applied for a temporary permit to operate 'substitute service' in the vacancy of the defaulted route and was issued with Ext.P3 permit valid for a period of four months from 06.07.2015 to 05.07.2015. However, the writ petitioner's application for reissue of temporary permit was rejected as per Ext.P6 order on the ground that grant of permit as sought for by the first respondent would offend Ext.P7 approved scheme of nationalization dated 14.07.2009 published as SRO No. 608 of 2009. According to the first respondent/writ petitioner, in Ext.P6 proceedings, it was admitted that the vacancy of the aforesaid stage carriage was in existence. The first respondent has issued a notification directing the transport authorities in the State to issue permits to operate 'Limited Stop Ordinary Service' (LSOS) permits to all the stage carriage permits which had been issued with permits to operate higher class of services like fast passenger, super fast etc. The grievance of the first respondent/writ petitioner is that eventhough Ext.P7 scheme has been made applicable to all the classes of stage carriage services, the benefit of Ext.P9 notification was confined to erstwhile operators of higher class of services. Aggrieved by the same, writ petition has been filed by the first respondent. While admitting the writ petition, writ court directed to re-issue temporary permit on the same route pending disposal of the writ petitioner. Hence this appeal.

5. Order dated 23.12.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 36252 of 2015 impugned in this appeal is as follows:

“Admit.

The petitioner hitherto granted temporary permit in defaulted vacancy shall be re-issued with temporary permit for a period of two weeks on the same route pending disposal of the writ petition. Post on 05.01.2016 along with W.P.(C) No. 38577/2015.”

6. Being aggrieved, instant appeal is filed on the following grounds:

“A. The learned single Judge should have found that Ext.P7 scheme published under Sec. 100(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act on 14.07.2009. The validity of the scheme has been upheld by this Hon'ble Court. After the scheme is approved, published, private operators have no right to claim temporary permit to operate their vehicle on the notified route or portion thereof because the scheme is a law and prevails till varied according to law. Therefore, private operators cannot be allowed to enter into the prohibited routes or portion thereof covered by the scheme through back doors by taking temporary permit as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UP State Roadways Transport Corporation, Lucknow vs. Anwar Ahammed and others reported in 1997 (3) SCC 191. Therefore, the direction of the learned single Judge is to be set aside.

B. The learned single Judge should have found that the first respondent is having an alternative efficacious remedy against Ext.P6 order before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal as provided under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As per Exhibit P6 order, the application for temporary permit has been rejected by the 3rd respondent stating that the proposed route objectionably overlaps 28 kms from Aluva--Vyttila on the Ernakul