S.71(3)(b) MV Act Reservations For SC/ST Prevail For Routes Outside Nationalization Scheme; Writ Maintainable Against Ex-Facie Illegal Orders: Kerala High Court - 2025-06-24

Kerala High Court Upholds SC/ST Member's Right to Bus Permit, Rules Route Not Covered by KSRTC Nationalization Scheme

Ernakulam, Kerala – May 23, 2025 – The Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling, dismissed a writ appeal filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation ( KSRTC ), thereby upholding a Single Bench's decision that directed the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) to reconsider a permit application from Mr. Babu D. , a member of a Scheduled Caste community. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice Muralee Krishna S. , affirmed that the constitutional and statutory provisions for Scheduled Caste/Tribe (SC/ST) reservation in stage carriage permits hold precedence when the route in question is not covered by a KSRTC nationalization scheme.

The judgment in WA No. 608 of 2018 also reinforced that a writ petition is maintainable against an administrative order that is ex-facie illegal and violative of fundamental rights, even if an alternative remedy exists.

Case Background: A Fight for Livelihood and Rights

The case originated when Mr. Babu D. , a member of the Cheramar community (Scheduled Caste) and a worker of the Trivandrum District Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Motor Transport Co-operative Society, sought a regular stage carriage permit. The society had previously operated on the route, but its permit lapsed. Mr. Babu D. , along with others, subsequently operated a stage carriage on temporary permits.

His application for a regular permit was rejected by the RTA, Thiruvananthapuram, vide order Ext.P7 dated August 4, 2017, primarily based on a KSRTC nationalization scheme from 2009. Mr. Babu D. challenged this rejection in W.P.(C) No.31064 of 2017, which the Single Judge allowed on November 24, 2017, leading to the present appeal by KSRTC .

The historical context included a period post-1994 when, due to a KSRTC strike, private stage carriage permits were introduced in Thiruvananthapuram, with 100 permits reserved for private operators, including a quota for SC/ST under Section 71(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Key Arguments

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (Appellant): * Argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as Mr. Babu D. had not exhausted the alternative remedy of appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. * Contended that Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (specifically Sections 98 and 104), which deals with special provisions for state transport undertakings, has an overriding effect, prohibiting private permits on routes covered by nationalization schemes. * Relied on the Akash Dev Vs. State of Kerala judgment to support the overriding nature of Chapter VI. * Claimed the route overlapped excessively with notified KSRTC routes, beyond permissible limits under the 2009 scheme.

Babu D. (Respondent): * Asserted that the writ petition was maintainable because the RTA's order (Ext.P7) was ex-facie illegal, arbitrary, and violated his fundamental right to carry on an occupation (Article 19(1)(g)) and the state's duty to promote economic interests of SC/ST (Article 46 of the Constitution). * Crucially argued that the specific route in question was never included in the annexure or schedule of KSRTC 's 2009 nationalization scheme. * Highlighted Section 71(3)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which mandates reservation of permits for SC/ST. * Pointed to a subsequent government notification (14.08.2009) that fixed 100 permits for private operators in Thiruvananthapuram district. * Noted that he had been subsequently issued renewed permits, including one valid until 2029, indicating the route was not barred for private operation.

High Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The Division Bench meticulously examined the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, constitutional mandates, and previous judicial pronouncements.

On Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The Court overruled KSRTC 's objection, stating:

"Ext.P7 order of the transport authority keeping in view the aforementioned provisions [Articles 19 and 46 of the Constitution] ex facie is without jurisdiction, therefore, as per the settled law, the jurisdiction of the writ court by not availing the alternative remedy is permissible, thus the objection of not availing the remedy of appeal is overruled." (Para 30)

Applicability of Nationalization Scheme (Chapter VI, Section 98 MV Act): The Court found KSRTC 's reliance on the overriding effect of its nationalization scheme misplaced for the route in question.

"It is reiterated that the annexure under schedule to the scheme of 14.07.2009 promulgated under Section 102 has already specified routes, whereas the route in question, is never subject matter of the Annexure/the schedule. Thus, for all intents and purposes, Section 98 of the Act would not have any binding force for applicability of the non obstante clause." (Para 27)

The Court also noted that despite the 14.07.2009 scheme, the government issued a notification on 14.08.2009 (Ext.P2), fixing a ratio of 760 permits for state transport and 100 for other operators in Thiruvananthapuram, which supported the operation of private services on routes not covered by the scheme.

Constitutional Provisions and Section 71(3)(b) MV Act: The Bench heavily endorsed the Single Judge's reasoning, which emphasized the mandatory nature of SC/ST reservation. The Single Judge had observed (quoted in Para 34 of the appeal judgment):

"It is pertinent to note that the phraseology employed in clause (b) of sub- section (3) of Sec.71 is “shall”. Therefore, the State Government had no other option than to grant sufficient number of stage carriage permits to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in accordance with law... Moreover, Article 46 of the Constitution of India under Part-IV is relevant... Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India is relevant..."

"Even though provisions of Chapter VI of Act, 1988, has overriding effect over the provisions of Chapter V or any other law, it can only be viewed as subject to the reservation created under Sec.71(3)(b) of Act, 1988."

The Court distinguished precedents cited by KSRTC regarding the predominance of Chapter VI, noting they dealt with "ordinary and normal situations" and not the "peculiar facts and circumstances of this case" involving the upliftment of SC/ST communities.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court dismissed KSRTC 's appeal, finding the Single Judge's decision to be "perfectly legal and justified."

The judgment has significant implications: 1. It clarifies that KSRTC 's nationalization schemes under Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act do not automatically oust private operators from routes that are not specifically listed or annexed to the said schemes. 2. It strongly reaffirms the mandatory nature of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the grant of stage carriage permits under Section 71(3)(b) of the Act, viewing it as a critical tool for achieving the socio-economic objectives enshrined in Articles 15(4) and 46 of the Constitution. 3. It serves as a reminder that administrative orders which are ex-facie illegal or contrary to constitutional mandates can be challenged directly via writ petitions, bypassing alternative remedies.

The fact that Mr. Babu D. continued to receive temporary and subsequently renewed regular permits (latest valid up to July 2029, as per Annexure R1(B)) further supported the Court's conclusion that the authorities themselves did not consider the route to be exclusively reserved for KSRTC .