The impugned “2020 G.O” would really have no effect whatsoever. The act of the Government in withdrawing the “2015 G.O”, through the “2020 G.O.”, the de-facto or de-jure position cannot be altered; and hence, on account of the interim order of this Court, afore extracted – which had been issued taking note of the observations of the learned Division Bench – the petitioners will certainly be entitled to continue to operate, at least until such time as the Government brings out a modified or a new Scheme as per the M.V. Act.

Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - PERMITS - SAVED PERMITS - Petitioners were operating their services on the strength of the declarations of the learned Division Bench of this Court in Saju Varkey (supra). The impugned “2020 G.O” would really have no effect whatsoever. The act of the Government in withdrawing the “2015 G.O”, through the “2020 G.O.”, the de-facto or de-jure position cannot be altered; and hence, on account of the interim order of this Court, afore extracted – which had been issued taking note of the observations of the learned Division Bench – the petitioners will certainly be entitled to continue to operate, at least until such time as the Government brings out a modified or a new Scheme as per the M.V. Act.
Fact of the Case:

The challenge in these cases is against Government Order G.O.(M.S)No.22/2020/Trans dated 01.07.2020 (“2020 G.O” for short), which seeks to recall an earlier Government Order bearing No.45/2015/Trans dated 28.08.2015 (“2015 G.O”. for short). According to the petitioners, the impugned Government Order was an unnecessary exercise of power because a learned Division Bench of this Court, in KSRTC and others vs. Saju Varkey [2018(4) KLJ 145], has held the permits enjoyed by all the petitioners in these cases to be “Saved Permits”; they thus being entitled to operate at least until such time as a valid Scheme of Nationalisation, or a modification of the earlier, is brought in under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Finding of the Court:

The impugned “2020 G.O” would really have no effect whatsoever. The act of the Government in withdrawing the “2015 G.O”, through the “2020 G.O.”, the de-facto or de-jure position cannot be altered; and hence, on account of the interim order of this Court, afore extracted – which had been issued taking note of the observations of the learned Division Bench – the petitioners will certainly be entitled to continue to operate, at least until such time as the Government brings out a modified or a new Scheme as per the M.V. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned “2020 G.O” would really have no effect whatsoever. The act of the Government in withdrawing the “2015 G.O”, through the “2020 G.O.”, the de-facto or de-jure position cannot be altered; and hence, on account of the interim order of this Court, afore extracted – which had been issued taking note of the observations of the learned Division Bench – the petitioners will certainly be entitled to continue to operate, at least until such time as the Government brings out a modified or a new Scheme as per the M.V. Act.
Final Decision: Confirming the afore interim order, I dispose of all these writ petitions; however, clarify that it will continue to be in effect only until such time as the Government brings out a modified or a new Scheme under the provisions of M.V.Act. Though unnecessary to say so, the petitioners will be at liberty to challenge any such Scheme in terms of law, for the purpose of which, all their contentions are left open.

JUDGMENT

The challenge in these cases is against Government Order G.O.(M.S)No.22/2020/Trans dated 01.07.2020 (“2020 G.O” for short), which seeks to recall an earlier Government Order bearing No.45/2015/Trans dated 28.08.2015 (“2015 G.O”. for short).

2. According to the petitioners, the impugned Government Order was an unnecessary exercise of power because a learned Division Bench of this Court, in KSRTC and others vs. Saju Varkey [2018(4) KLJ 145], has held the permits enjoyed by all the petitioners in these cases to be “Saved Permits”; they thus being entitled to operate at least until such time as a valid Scheme of Nationalisation, or a modification of the earlier, is brought in under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. It is the specific case of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases that once Saju Vakey (Supra) was delivered by this Court, even the “2015 G.O” lost its relevance, since it had been issued only as a transitory measure until such time as the Government brought out a valid Scheme. They assert that, therefore, the issuance of the “2020 G.O” would also be of no consequence at all; but that, unfortunately, the competent Authorities of the Transport Department have come to be under the wrong impression that because of this order, all their permits stand revoked. They, therefore, pray that either this Court declare that, on account of the declarations of Saju Varkey (supra), the petitioners are entitled to operate on the strength of the permits already enjoyed by them; or, in the alternative, to strike down the impugned “2020 G.O”.

4. In response, the learned Special Government Pleader – Sri.Santhosh Kumar, submitted that the petitioners were able to operate on the routes, which are now proposed to be nationalised, solely on account of the “2015 G.O.”, but that when a new Scheme was propounded in the year 2017, the said order was rendered without legs to stand on; and consequently, that the Government withdrew it through the “2020 G.O”. He added that since the Government is in the process of now issuing a modified Scheme under the provisions of the M.V Act, the benefit of the “2015 G.O” cannot inure to the petitioners any more. He, therefore, prayed that these writ petitions be dismissed.

5. Before I tread forward, I must record that when these matters were heard by this Court on 29.10.2021, after assessing the rival positions, I passed the following interim order.

“Even though I have heard these matters finally, I am unable to deliver judgment on account of paucity of time today.

2. I, therefore, adjourn these matters to be called on 08.11.2021; until which date, the status quo with respect to the Temporary Permits of the petitioners will be maintained.

3. To paraphrase, they be allowed to operate in the manner as they are permitted today, until the next posting date.”

6. It is conceded before me by both sides that this order is still in effect and that the petitioners are operating their services on its terms.

7. In the Background of the afore essential facts, it is perspicuous that the controversy arose at a time when the Government wanted to bring out a Scheme, but which, on account of certain discrepancies between the draft and the final notifications, could not take effect. It is then that the Government brought out the “2015 G.O” purportedly to help persons like the petitioners and they then preceded to issue a modified Scheme, during the process of which, Saju Varkey (supra) was delivered by a learned Division Bench of this Court.

8. Indubitably, therefore, the petitioners are now operating not on the strength of the “2015 G.O.”, but on the specific, indubitable and express declarations of this Court in paragraph 16 of Saju Varkey (supra). Axiomatically, therefore, the act of the Government in withdrawing the “2015 G.O.”, by issuing the “2020 G.O”, would really have no effect whatsoever.

9. It is needless to say that as long as the declarations in Saju Varkey (supra)remains – which it

Click Here to Read the rest of this document