IMPORTANT POINT
The State Government must provide adequate consideration and reasons for rejecting objections when modifying transport service schemes, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

D. K. Singh, J.

The present batch of writ petitions have been filed by the private stage carriage operators impugning the Scheme framed in the exercise of the powers conferred under Section 100(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act for short) r/w Clause (b) of Rule 246 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, for passenger road transport service on the routes which would be run and operated exclusively by the Kerala State Transport Undertaking. The said scheme has been placed on record as Ext.P14 in W.P(C) No. 18290 of 2023.

2. In all these writ petitions, almost identical facts and questions of law are involved, and therefore, the facts of the lead petition, W.P (C) No. 18290/2023, are taken note of for the purposes of deciding the issue involved in these batch of writ petitions.

3. The petitioners in these writ petitions are the existing stage carriage operators, conducting their services on the routes for which the impugned scheme has been framed. Under the said scheme, the length of the routes of the petitioners’ stage carriage operation has been restricted to 140 Km, and the petitioners would not be able to apply for renewal of permits in view of the notifications issued.

4. As per Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules 1989(the KMV Rules for short), ‘Ordinary limited stop service’ means a service having a distance of not more than 140 Kms, with one or more stops in every stage. Rule 2(ua) defines a ‘Super Deluxe Service’ means a service that is operated by a fleet owner on a route having a distance of not less than 300 kms. As per Rule 2(ub), ‘Super Express Service’ is the service operated by a fleet owner on a route having a distance of not less than 200 kms. Rule 2(uc) defines a ‘ Super Fast service’ as one operated by a fleet owner on a route having a distance between 150 kms and 450 kms. As per Rule 2(ea), ‘Fast Passenger Service’ is a service that is operated by a fleet owner with limited stops on a route having a distance of not less than 70 Kms.

5. Under the aforesaid rules, thus an ‘ordinary service’ can operate upto 140 kms and all other classes of services are exclusively reserved for the fleet owners. The aforesaid Rules came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this court in O.P No. 8235 of 1999. Vide the judgment dated 30.06.2003, this court struck down the word ‘fleet owner’. This court was of the view that except for KSRTC, there was no other person/entity in the entire State, who could be said to be the fleet owner. Therefore, the definition of ‘fleet owner’ excluded everyone except the KSRTC for undertaking any other service, except the ordinary service. This would be violative of Articles 14 and 19 1(g) of the Constitution of India. This court was of the view that such a definition of ‘fleet owner’ was arbitrary unreasonable and militates principle of the equality principle under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the definition clause contained in Rule 2 (cb) was found to be arbitrary and the same was quashed.

6.Brief Facts

A) In exercise of the powers conferred under section 99 of the MV Act r/w rule 236 of the KMV Rules, the State Government published in the Official Gazette dated 15.09.2008, a proposal in’ Form A’ of the Appendix-1 of the KMV Rules relating to a scheme of road transport service ( stage carriage service) to be run and operated in KSRTC, in relation to 31 routes, as noted in Annexure of the said scheme. This proposal envisaged the operation of the stage carriage services by KSRTC to the ‘partial inclusion’ of the existing private services on these 31 routes.

B) The State Government, after considering the objections against the proposed scheme, published the modified scheme in the Official Gazette dated 14.07.2009 under Subsection (2) of Section 100 of the MV Act r/w rule 239 of KMV Rules. The said scheme was challenged in a batch of writ petitions inter alia on the grounds that the approved scheme did not indicate that the objections rai