Permits cannot be granted to private operators on routes covered by a notified scheme according to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, affirming the jurisdiction of the scheme over general powers.

1 The Kerala State Transport Employees Association and the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation hereinafter referred to as the "K.S.R.T.C.", approached this Court with O.P. Nos. 22415 of 2000 and 23915 of 2000 respectively, praying for the issue of a Writ of certiorari to quash the grant of permits by the Regional Transport Authority, Idukki to one Rahul Tom, hereinafter referred to as an "operator" on the route Kumily to Kottayam. According to the K.S.R.T.C. and the Employees Association, no permit could be granted by the Regional Transport Authorities since the routes were part of notified schemes under Chap.6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned Single Judge having upheld the challenge to the grants and having quashed the permits, the operator has filed W.A. Nos. 2526 of 2000 and 2527 of 2000 challenging the decision of the learned Single Judge. Three other operators similarly situated along with the Kerala Private Bus Operators Association, Changanacherry Unit, represented by its President have filed W.A. Nos. 3203 of 2000 and 3204 of 2000 challenging the decision of the learned single Judge after obtaining permission from this Court. The Kerala State Transport Employees Association, the Petitioner in O.P. 22415 of 2000, giving rise to W.A. 2526 of 2000, has filed W.A. 3105 of 2000 complaining that the learned Single Judge was not justified in not granting specific reliefs or the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the Original Petition and was not justified in couching the relief only on general terms. A number of other operators have come forward to get themselves impleaded in the main Writ Appeal and those impleading petitions have also been allowed and all counsel were heard.

2 The genesis of the dispute may now be referred to. The operator applied for two regular permits on the route Kumily to Kottayam before the Regional Transport Authority, Idukki, who is the primary authority. By the order Annexure - A produced with the memorandum of Writ Appeal in W.A. 2526 of 2000, the Regional Transport Authority, Idukki granted the route permit subject to counter signature by the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam and subject to settlement of timings. According to the operator, these grants were not challenged then and there, either by filing a revision or by filing an Original Petition before this Court. The timings were settled by the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority, Idukki by orders dated 13.6.2000 and 7.7.2000 respectively. We may note here that even before the Regional Transport Authority, Idukki, the District Transport Officer, Kottayam, for and on behalf of K.S.R.T.C., had raised objection to the granting of permit in view of the fact that the proposed route violates Thekkady Ernakulam scheme and Kottayam Thekkady scheme. The actual permits were issued to the operator on 13.6.2000 and 7.7.2000 respectively and it was at that stage that the Original Petitions were filed before this Court invoking Art.226 of the Constitution of India challenging the said orders fixing the timings and generally challenging the permits issued. The essential plea raised was that the grant of permit was in violation of Ext. P1 modified scheme published on 1.11.1966. There was also a prayer to cancel all regular permits granted after the coming into force of the scheme on 12.10.1966. The contention of the K.S.R.T.C. and the Employees Association was that once a scheme was approved and adopted, no permit could be granted on the route or in any segment of that route unless it was so permitted by the scheme itself. Since there was no such permission in the scheme adopted, the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction or power to grant a permit to an operator subsequent to the coming into force of the scheme. The Original Petitions were resisted essentially on the pleas that since there was no challenge to the original grant, no effective relief can be granted to the petitioners. The petitioners in the Original P