Point of Law: Nationalized route - Overlapping sought was within permissible limit - The expression “intersection” has been employed by court only to provide a facility to private operator operating on a non notified route to continue on an onward journey, if it cuts across a notified route.

JUDGMENT :

Petitioner is an existing stage carriage operator conducting service on the route Kallara – Kurissumoodu, evidenced by Ext.P1. The original permit holder had applied for variation of permit by extending the route from Kurissumoodu to Anchal without changing the existing time and without providing additional service. Ext.P2 is the proposed set of timings. The extended route from Kurissumoodu to Anchal falls within the notified route meant for KSRTC service. According to the petitioner, the total route length from Kallara – Kurissumoodu is 40.3 Kms and by virtue of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, the permissible overlapping comes to 2.01.Kms. Extension sought for, from Kurissumoodu to Anchal covers a distance of 1.6 Kms which is less than the permissible overlapping of 2.01 Kms. On this basis, petitioner claimed that the overlapping sought was within the permissible limit. However, the application was rejected by the RTA by Ext.P4 order holding that extended portion from Kurissumoodu to Anchal overlapped into the notified scheme, Trivandrum -Kottayam via Ranny and thus violated GO(P)No.8/2017/trans.dated 23/3/2017. Ext.P4 was taken in appeal before the STAT, Ernakulam by filing MVAA No.234/2019. Learned Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions and extension sought for, found that total permissible overlapping was 2.01 Kms and the route for which the extension was sought for was only 1.6 Kms and hence it was within the permissible limit. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the first respondent therein was directed to consider whether there was overlapping in the existing route and whether there was overlapping in the entire route, including the varied portion. It was held that if the first respondent found that there was no objectionable overlapping in the entire route and if there was no other legal impediment, variation sought shall be granted. However, the RTA, by Ext.P7 order, rejected the application reiterating the earlier order. In Ext.P7, it was held that the proposed variation included extension of 1.6 kms from Kurisumoodu to Anchal and the entire portion objectionably overlaped the notified route and thus violated the Government Order dated 23/3/2017. Aggrieved by Ext.P7 order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the authority committed a fundamental error of law which is susceptible in a writ proceeding. It was contended that, RTA failed to notice that the extension sought was within the non objectionable limit, since the one of the termini at Kurissumoodu was sought to be extended to the next station at Anchal. Since the extension sought was within the permissible limit, the Authority could not have ignored the order of the appellate Tribunal, it was contended.

3. Learned senior Government Pleader, supporting the impugned order, contended that the entire length of extension overlapped the notified area and hence the order of the RTA was legally sustainable. Though the extension sought was within the permissible extent, the extended portion completely covered the Nationalised route. Vehemently supporting the impugned order, the learned senior Government Pleader canvassed the proposition that the purpose of granting extension overlapping the notified area was only for intersection. It was contended that in the absence of any intersection in this case, there could not be any overlapping, by virtue of the Rules.

4. There is no dispute that the Rule does not prescribe that extension cannot be at one of the either end or entire length of extension sought should not cover the notified area. However, it was contended by the learned Government Pleader that overlapping can only be for intersection. To substantiate this, learned senior Government Pleader relied on the decisions reported in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Ashrafulla Khan And Others [(2002) 2 SCC 560] as well as the three Judges Bench decision of the