Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. These writ appeals filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC)/State of Kerala and its officials arise out of a common judgment dated 01.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024 and connected matters.

2. W.A.No.2342 of 2025 filed by KSRTC arises out of the judgment dated 01.08.2025 in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024, W.A.No. 2348 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.40312 of 2024, W.A.No.2391 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.20813 of 2025, W.A.No.2391 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.24665 of 2025, W.A.No.2404 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.21756 of 2025, W.A.No.2413 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.22595 of 2025, W.A.No.2445 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.21280 of 2025, W.A.No.2464 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.19633 of 2025 and W.A.No.2390 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.24613 of 2025. W.A.No.2761 of 2025 filed by the State of Kerala and its officials arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.19633 of 2025, W.A.No.2765 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2025 and W.A.No.2798 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.24613 of 2025.

3. The 1st respondent in W.A.No.2342 of 2025, who was holding Ext.P1 stage carriage permit on the route Kozhikode- Ernakulam South as a Superfast service, in respect of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-56/L-2891, which was valid from 19.06.2011 till 18.06.2016, filed W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024, invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Malappuram, to consider the applications for renewal of permit made by the petitioner on the route Kozhikode-Ernakulam as Limited Stop Ordinary Service (LSOS), untrammelled by the scheme published vide Ext.P6 notification, i.e., G.O.(P)No.13/2023/Trans. dated 03.05.2023, and grant renewal of permit as LSOS, without insisting the curtailment of route length to less than 140 kilometers; a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Secretary, RTA, Malappuram, to consider Ext.P7 application dated 20.05.2024 for temporary permit on the route Kozhikode- Ernakulam, as LSOS, untrammelled by Ext.P6 scheme published on 03.05.2023, and grant and issue temporary permit to the petitioner, without insisting curtailment of route length to less than 140 kilometers, till the disposal of the application for renewal of permit, i.e., Ext.P1 stage carriage permit. The document marked as Ext.P2 is an application dated 06.02.2016 made by the petitioner for renewal of Ext.P1 stage carriage permit, for a period of five years, from 19.06.2016 till 18.06.2021. The petitioner again filed Ext.P3 application dated 17.06.2021, for renewal of the stage carriage permit from 19.06.2021, on the ground that renewal of Ext.P1 permit from 19.06.2016 for five years is pending in Ext.P2 application dated 06.02.2016. In W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024, the 3rd respondent KSRTC filed a counter affidavit dated 15.11.2024, opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Exts.R3(a) to R3(e) documents. Along with I.A.No.1 of 2025, KSRTC produced Ext.R3(f) judgment dated 24.09.2020 in W.A.No.1054 of 2020. RTA, Malappuram and its Secretary have filed W.A.No.2765 of 2025 challenging the judgment dated 01.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024.

                  3.1.    The 1st respondent in W.A.No.2348 of 2025, who was holding Ext.P1 stage carriage permit on the route Ernakulam South-Thalasserry as Limited Stop Fast Passenger (LSFP), in respect of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-41/L-3487, which was valid from 31.12.2009 till 30.12.2014, filed W.P.(C)No.40312 of 2024, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent RTA, Vatakara, to consider the applications for renewal of permit made by the petitioner on the route Ernakulam South- Thalasserry as LSOS, untrammelled by the scheme published vide Ext.P4 notification, i.e., G.O.(P)No.13/2023/Trans. dated 03.05.2023, and grant renewal of permit as LSOS, without insisting the curtailment of route length to less than 140 kilometers; a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Secretary, RTA, Vatakara, to consider Ext.P5 application dated 06.11.2024 for temporary permit on the route Ernakulam South- Thalasserry, as LSOS, untrammelled by Ext.P4 scheme published on 03.05.2023, and grant and issue temporary permit to the petitioner, without insisting curtailment of route length to less than 140 kilometers, till the disposal of the application for renewal of permit, i.e., Ext.P1 stage carriage permit. In W.P.(C)No.40312 of 2024 the 3rd respondent KSRTC has filed a counter affidavit dated 15.11.2024, opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Exts.R3(a) to R3(e) documents, raising contentions similar to those raised in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024.

                  3.2.    The 1st respondent in W.A.No.2391 of 2025, who was holding a stage carriage permit on the route Kuzhitholu-Kottayam, as LSOS in respect of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-33/L- 3446, which was valid till 22.07.2018 (going by the averments in the writ petition), filed W.P.(C)No.20813 of 2025, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Secretary, RTA, Idukki, to entertain Ext.P3 application dated 03.04.2025 for temporary permit in respect of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL- 33/L-3446 on the route Kuzhitholu-Kottayam as LSOS, till orders are passed by the 2nd respondent Secretary, RTA, Idukki, in the application for renewal of permit, without insisting the curtailment of the route length to less than 140 kilometers. In the said writ petition, the 3rd respondent KSRTC has filed a counter affidavit dated 18.06.2025, opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, raising contentions similar to those taken in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024.

                  3.3.    The 1st respondent in W.A.No.2392 of 2025, who was holding a stage carriage permit on the route Ernakulam South- Kozhikode, as LSOS in respect of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-10/AE-5140 and the 2nd respondent in that writ appeal, who was holding a stage carriage permit on the route Ernakulam South-Kozhikode, as LSOS in respect of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-65/B-1677 (going by the averments in the writ petition), filed W.P.(C)No.24665 of 2025, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent Secretary, RTA, Malappuram, to consider Exts.P4 and P5 applications for temporary permit in respect of the said stage carriages, on the route Ernakulam South-Kozhikode as LSOS, till orders are passed in the applications for renewal of permit. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent RTA, Malappuram, to grant renewal of permit in respect of stage carriages bearing Reg.Nos.KL-10/AE-5140 and KL-65/B-1677 on the route Ernakulam South-Kozhikode, as LSOS, without insisting on the curtailment of the route length to less than 140 kilometers.

                  3.4. The 1st respondent in W.A.No.2404 of 2025, who was holding Ext.P1 stage carriage permit on the route Kumily- Kottayam in respect of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-34/B- 5067 as Limited Stop Ordinary Service (LSOS), which was valid from 22.05.2010 till 21.05.2015, filed W.P.(C)No.21756 of 2025, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Secretary, RTA, Idukki, to entertain Ext.P4 application dated 03.04.2025 for temporary permit in respect of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-33/L-3425 and grant and issue the temporary permit on the route Kumily-Kottayam as LSOS, without insisting the curtailment of the route length to less than 140 kilometers.

                  3.5.    The 1st respondent in W.A.No.2413 of 2025, who is the son and legal heir of late P.K. Poulose, Managing Partner of PPK Sons, Kothamangalam, who was holding Ext.P1 stage carriage permit on the route Aluva-Kanthaloor, an inter-regional route having a route length of 170 kilometers, which was valid from 18.10.1984 till 17.10.1987, which was later renewed up to 17.10.1990, has filed W.P.(C)No.22595 of 2025, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent RTA, Idukki, to consider and pass final orders on the application for renewal of Ext.P1 stage carriage permit, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within the time limit to be stipulated by this Court, taking into account the judgment of this Court dated 17.03.2025 in W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and the law laid down in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617]; and a declaration that the petitioner as the holder of Ext.P1 saved permit is entitled to renewal of the same without any distance embargo, in the light of the law laid down in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617]. In W.P.(C)No.22595 of 2025 the learned Special Government Pleader has filed a counter affidavit dated 04.07.2025 on behalf of the 3rd respondent Regional Transport Authority, opposing the reliefs sought for, raising contentions similar to those raised in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of KSRTC in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024.

                  3.6.    The 1st respondent in W.A.No.2445 of 2025, who was holding Ext.P1 stage carriage permit on the route Ernakulam- Kumily having a route length of 180 kilometers, which was valid from 11.12.2017 to 10.12.2022, has filed W.P.(C)No.21280 of 2025, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent RTA, Idukki, to consider and pass final orders on the application for renewal of Ext.P1 stage carriage permit, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a time limit to be specified by this Court, taking into account Ext.P8 judgment dated 17.03.2025 in W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and connected cases and the law laid down in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617]; a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent Secretary, RTA, Idukki, to forthwith consider and pass final orders on Ext.P9 application dated 08.11.2024 for temporary permit filed under Section 87(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, issuing temporary permit pending decision on the applications for renewal of Ext.P1 regular permit, taking into account Ext.P8 judgment in W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and connected cases and the law laid down in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617]; a declaration that the petitioner as the holder of Ext.P1 saved permit is entitled to renewal of the same without any distance embargo, in the light of the law laid down in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617]. The 4th respondent KSRTC has filed a counter affidavit dated 18.06.2025 in W.P.(C)No.21280 of 2025, opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to R4(g) documents, raising contentions similar to those raised in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024.

                  3.7.    The 1st respondent in W.A.No.2464 of 2025, who was holding Ext.P1 stage carriage permit on the route Pooppara- Konnakkadu as Super Express service, in respect of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-39/L-8282 with permit No.P.St.6/14/2000, which was valid from 13.04.2010 till 12.04.2015, and in respect of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-39/L-8283 with permit No.P.St.6/9/2000, which was valid from 15.02.2010 till 14.02.2015, filed W.P.(C)No.19633 of 2025, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent Secretary, RTA, Idukki, to entertain Exts.P27 and P28 applications dated 03.04.2025 for temporary permits in respect of stage carriage bearing Reg.Nos.KL-39/L-8282 and KL-39/L-8283 and grant temporary permit on the route Pooppara-Konnakadu, as LSOS, till orders are passed by the 3rd respondent RTA, Idukki, in the applications for renewal of the stage carriage permit, without insisting the curtailment of the route length to less than 140 kilometers; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent RTA, to consider Exts.P25 and P26 applications for renewal of permit in respect of stage carriages bearing Reg.Nos.KL-39/L-8282 and KL-39/L-8283 on the route Pooppara- Konnakkadu as LSOS and grant and issue the same without insisting the curtailment of the route length to less than 140 kilometers, till the disposal of the applications for renewal of permit. On behalf of the 5th respondent KSRTC a counter affidavit dated 06.06.2025 was filed in W.P.(C)No.19633 of 2025, opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Ext.R5(a) document. The 3rd respondent Regional Transport Authority has also filed a counter affidavit dated 02.07.2025, opposing the reliefs sought for. The State of Kerala and the official respondents in W.P.(C)No.19633 of 2025 have filed W.A.No.2761 of 2025, challenging the judgment dated 01.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

                  3.8.    The 1st respondent in W.A.No.2390 of 2025, who was holding Ext.P1 stage carriage permit on the route Chandanakkampara-Kottayam in respect of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-67/A-2529, as Super-Fast service, which was valid from 27.10.2012 to 26.10.2017 and the 2nd and 3rd respondents, who are stage carriage operators conducting service with stage carriages bearing Reg.Nos.KL-05/AV-1975 and KL-67/B-8898 on the route Pathanamthitta-Padichira on the strength of stage carriage permits issued by the 6th respondent Secretary, RTA, Kottayam (going by the averments in the writ petition), have filed W.P.(C)No.24613 of 2025, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent Secretary, RTA, to consider Ext.P6 application dated 08.11.2024 made by the 1st petitioner for temporary permit in respect of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL- 67/B-5299 on the route Chandanamkkampara-Kottayam and the 6th respondent Secretary, RTA, Kottayam to consider Exts.P7 and P8 applications dated 04.04.2025 for temporary permits to stage carriages bearing Reg.Nos.KL-05/AV-1975 and KL-67/B-8898 made by the 2nd and 3rd petitioners on the route Pathanamthitta- Padichira as LSOS and grant temporary permit as sought for, till orders are passed in the application for renewal of permit; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent RTA to grant renewal of permit in respect of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL- 67/B-5299 on the route Chandanamkkampara-Kottayam and the 5th respondent RTA, Kottayam to grant renewal of permit in respect of stage carriages bearing Reg.Nos.KL-05/AV-1975 and KL-67/B-8898 made by the 2nd and 3rd petitioners on the route Pathanamthitta-Padichira as LSOS, without insisting on curtailment of the route length to less than 140 kilometers. The State of Kerala and the official respondents have filed W.A.No.2798 of 2025 challenging the judgment dated 01.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.24613 of 2025.

4. After considering the rival contentions the learned Single Judge, by a common judgment dated 01.08.2025 allowed W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024 and connected matters ordering that, until a new scheme is enacted as mandated by law, the final and binding declaration in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617] will continue to operate, preventing the denial of renewal of applications based on distance restrictions. Resultantly, the Regional Transport Authorities and their officers are directed to consider the applications for temporary permit made by the petitioners, within three weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment, and to consider the applications for renewal of regular permits, within two months thereafter, without any distance restriction, in accordance with law. Paragraphs 21 to 23 and also the last paragraph of the impugned judgment dated 01.08.2025 read thus;

                  “21. After examining the rival contentions and the record, it is evident that the petitioners, the respondent Government, and KSRTC understood the judgment in Saju Varkey (supra) as affirming that holders of the saved permits could operate without distance restrictions, as clearly stated therein, which was again clarified by this Court’s subsequent judgment in W.P.(C)No.14151 of 2020, which recorded the Government’s position. To circumvent this legal declaration, a new scheme was introduced on 03.05.2023, restricting saved permit holders to operate within 140 km. This led to the withdrawal of appeals by KSRTC and the State against the earlier judgment.

                  22.     Recognising that the Government and KSRTC understood the significance of this declaration, the 2023 scheme was evidently aimed at overriding it. As held in Desh Bandhu Gupta and Co. v. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. [(1979) 4 SCC 565], the principle of contemporanea expositio (interpreting a statute or any other document by reference to the exposition it has received from contemporary authority) can be invoked when contemporaneous construction placed by administrative or executive officers charged with executing a statute, although not controlling, is nevertheless entitled to considerable weight; it is highly persuasive.

                  23.     Regarding the contention that only clause 4 of the 2017 scheme was considered in Saju Varkey (supra), the same is equally unacceptable, as clauses 4 and 5(a) make no substantive difference. This view also contradicts the declaration in Saju Varkey (supra). Consequently, the argument of the respondents that even saved permit holders are subject to a distance limit is untenable. Since the 2023 scheme was quashed, the declaration in Saju Varkey (supra) remains effective and applicable. The quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as such stood on the date of the passing of the order which has been quashed.

                  For these reasons, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. Until a new scheme is enacted as mandated by law, the final and binding declaration in Saju Varkey (supra) will continue to operate, preventing the denial of renewal applications based on distance restrictions. Resultantly, the Regional Transport Authorities and their officers are directed to consider the petitioners’ applications for temporary permit within three weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment and the applications for renewal of the regular permit within two months thereafter, without any distance restriction, in accordance with law.

                  The writ petitions are allowed as above.’

5. Challenging the common judgment dated 01.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024 and connected matters, the KSRTC/State and its officials are before this Court in these writ appeals. The delay in filing the writ appeals was condoned by the order passed in the respective C.M. Applications.

6. Heard detailed arguments of the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC, the learned Special Government Pleader for the State and its officials, the learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent in W.A.Nos.2413 of 2025 and 2445 of 2025 and also the learned counsel for the party respondents in the connected writ appeals.

7. The contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC and the learned Special Government Pleader for the State and its officials is that the writ petitioners are not entitled to operate more than 140 kilometers as LSOS, because the Government notified the Super Class Scheme vide G.O.(P)No. 73/2013/Trans. dated 16.07.2013 [Ext.R3(a) in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024], under Section 100(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. As per Clause (18) of the said Scheme, the right to operate any class of service other than ordinary service in the State of Kerala and to increase the trips shall be reserved exclusively with KSRTC. As per Clause (3), the existing permits in the private sector, as on 16.07.2013, shall be allowed to continue till the date of expiry of the respective permits. Thereafter, no permits shall be renewed, and no permit, regular or temporary, shall be issued afresh.

8. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent in W.A.Nos.2413 of 2025 and 2445 of 2025, and that of the learned counsel for the party respondent(s) in the connected writ appeals, is that Ext.R3(a) scheme in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024, notified vide G.O.(P)No.73/2013/Trans. dated 16.07.2013 is ‘Service Centric Scheme’, whereby the right to operate all classes of services, other than ordinary service, in respect of stage carriages in the State of Kerala, was given exclusively to KSRTC, as noticed by the Division Bench in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617]. In the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench in the said decision, ‘saved permit’ holders, who were granted permits up to 14.07.2009, are entitled to operate their service, both as ordinary service and LSOS, without any distance restriction. The said position was clarified by the learned Single Judge in the subsequent judgment dated 12.01.2022 in W.P.(C)No.11074 of 2020 and connected matters.

9. Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, deals with special provisions relating to State Transport Undertakings. As per Section 97 of the Act, in Chapter VI, unless the context otherwise requires, ‘road transport service’ means a service of motor vehicles carrying passengers or goods or both by road for hire or reward. The said provision corresponds to Section 68-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939). As per Section 98 of the Act, the provisions of Chapter VI and the rules and orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter V or in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. The said provision corresponds to Section 68-B of Act IV of 1939.

10. Section 99 of the Act deals with the preparation and publication of a proposal requiring road transport service of a State Transport Undertaking. As per sub-section (1) of Section 99, where any State Government is of opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co- ordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services in general or any particular class of such service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof should be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise, the State Government may formulate a proposal regarding a scheme giving particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered and other relevant particulars respecting thereto and shall publish such proposal in the official gazette of the State formulating such proposal and in not less than one newspaper in the regional language circulating in the area or route proposed to be covered by such scheme and also in such other manner as the State Government formulating such proposal deem fit. As per sub- section (2) of Section 99, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), when a proposal is published under that sub- section, then from the date of publication of such proposal, no permit shall be granted to any person, except a temporary permit during the pendency of the proposal and such temporary permit shall be valid only for a period of one year from the date of its issue or till the date of final publication of the scheme under Section 100, whichever is earlier. The said provision corresponds to Section 68-C of Act IV of 1939.

11. Section 100 of the Act deals with the objection to the proposal. As per sub-section (1) of section 100, on the publication of any proposal regarding a scheme in the official gazette and in not less than one newspaper in the regional language circulating in the area or route which is to be covered by such proposal any person may, within thirty days from the date of its publication in the official gazette, file objections to it before the State Government. As per sub-section (2) of Section 100, the State Government may, after considering the objections and after giving an opportunity to the objector or his representatives and the representatives of the State Transport Undertaking to be heard in the matter, if they so desire, approve or modify such proposal. As per sub-section (3) of Section 100, the scheme relating to the proposal as approved or modified under sub-section (2) shall then be published in the official gazette by the State Government making such scheme and in not less than one newspaper in the regional language circulating in the area or route covered by such scheme and the same shall thereupon become final on the date of its publication in the official gazette and shall be called the approved scheme and the area or route to which it relates shall be called the notified area or notified route. As per the proviso to sub- section (3) of Section 100, no such scheme which relates to any inter-state route shall be deemed to be an approved scheme unless it has the previous approval of the Central Government. As per sub-section (4) of Section 100, notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a scheme is not published as an approved scheme under sub-section (3) in the official gazette within a period of one year from the date of publication of the proposal regarding the scheme in the official gazette under sub- section (1), the proposal shall be deemed to have lapsed. As per the Explanation to sub-section (4) of Section 100, in computing the period of one year referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the publication of the approved scheme under sub-section (3) was held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any court shall be excluded. Section 100 of the Act corresponds to Section 68-D of Act IV of 1939.

12. Section 101 of the Act deals with the operation of additional services by State Transport Undertaking in certain circumstances. As per Section 101, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 87, a State Transport Undertaking may, in the public interest, operate additional services for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings. As per the proviso to Section 101, the State Transport Undertaking shall inform about the operation of such additional services to the concerned Transport Authority without delay.

13. Section 102 of the Act deals with the cancellation or modification of a scheme. As per sub-section (1) of Section 102, the State Government may, at any time, if it considers necessary, in the public interest so to do, modify any approved scheme after giving (i) the State Transport Undertaking; and (ii) any other person who, in the opinion of the State Government, is likely to be affected by the proposed modification, an opportunity of being heard in respect of the proposed modification. As per sub-section (2) of Section 102, the State Government shall publish any modification proposed under sub-section (1) in the official gazette and in one of the newspapers in the regional languages circulating in the area in which it is proposed to be covered by such modification, together with the date, not being less than thirty days from such publication in the official gazette, and the time and place at which any representation received in this behalf will be heard by the State Government. The said provision corresponds to Section 68-E of Act IV of 1939.

14. Section 103 of the Act deals with the issue of permits to State Transport Undertakings. As per sub-section (1) of Section 103, where, in pursuance of an approved scheme, any State Transport Undertaking applies in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf for a stage carriage permit or a goods carriage permit or a contract carriage permit in respect of a notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority in any case where the said area or route lies in more than one region and the Regional Transport Authority in any other case shall issue such permit to the State Transport Undertaking, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter V. As per sub-section (2) of Section 103, for the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme in respect of a notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority or, as the case may be, the Regional Transport Authority concerned may, by order, (a) refuse to entertain any application for the grant or renewal of any other permit or reject any such application as may be pending; (b) cancel any existing permit; (c) modify the terms of any existing permit so as to (i) render the permit ineffective beyond a specified date; (ii) reduce the number of vehicles authorised to be used under the permit; (iii) curtail the area or route covered by the permit insofar as such permit relates to the notified area or notified route. As per sub-section (3) of Section 103, for the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no appeal shall lie against any action taken or order passed by the State Transport Authority or any Regional Transport Authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2).

15. Section 104 of the Act deals with the restriction on grant of permits in respect of notified area or notified route. As per Section 104, where a scheme has been published under sub- section (3) of Section 100 in respect of any notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. As per the proviso to Section 104, where no application for a permit has been made by the State Transport Undertaking in respect of any notified area or notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, may grant temporary permits to any person in respect of such notified area or notified route subject to the condition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of the area or route. The said provision corresponds to Section 68-FF of Act IV of 1939.

16. Section 107 of the Act deals with the power of State Government to make rules. As per sub-section (1) of Section 107, the State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter VI. As per sub-section (2) of Section 107, in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely, (a) the form in which any proposal regarding a scheme may be published under Section 99; (b) the manner in which objections may be filed under sub-section (1) of Section 100; (c) the manner in which objections may be considered and disposed of under sub-section (2) of Section 100; (d) the form in which any approved scheme may be published under sub-section (3) of Section 100; (e) the manner in which application under sub-section (1) of Section 103 may be made; (f) the period within which the owner may claim any article found left in any transport vehicle under Section 106 and the manner of sale of such article; (g) the manner of service of orders under this Chapter; (h) any other matter which has to be, or may be, prescribed. The said provision corresponds to Section 68-I of Act IV of 1939.

17. In G.T. Venkataswamy Reddy v. State Transport Authority [(2016) 8 SCC 402] the question referred for consideration by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court was whether on publication of an approved scheme under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939), the number of trips of the vehicles of the existing operations can be increased [both by number of trips and vehicles] by granting variation of a permit even when the existing operators are allowed to carry on their business as on the date of the publication of the scheme. After a detailed reference to Section 57(8) under Chapter IV of Act IV of 1939 and Sections 68-B, 68-C, 68-D, 68-E, 68-F(1-

D) and 68-FF under Chapter V of Act IV of 1939, the Constitution Bench held that Chapter IV-A of Act IV of 1939 supersedes any inconsistent provisions in Chapter IV; the policy of the legislature is clear from Section 68-C that the State Transport Undertaking may initiate a scheme for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service to be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking in relation to any area or route or portion thereof. It may do so if it is necessary in the public interest; a grant of variation under Section 57(8) will be as good as a grant of a new permit; Section 57(8) is controlled by Section 68-FF falling under Chapter IV-A, by virtue of the superseding effect of Section 68-B also falling under Chapter IV-A; once a scheme formulated under Section 68-D gets approved under Section 68-D(3) of Chapter IV-A, then all the permits in the route/area covered by the scheme will get frozen by virtue of the operation of Section 68-FF; the effect of Section 68-FF can be altered/modified/cancelled only in the manner as provided for under Section 68-E and in no other manner; by virtue of the above, either a grant of a new permit or the variation of an existing permit of private operator cannot be ordered in respect of an area or route covered by an approved scheme; the proposition of law laid down by Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.A. Jayaram [(1984) Supp. SCC 244] impliedly stood overruled in Adarsh Travels Bus Service v. State of U.P. [(1985) 4 SCC 557]; an increase in the number of trips or vehicles which were being run under the existing exempted permit under a scheme will amount to grant of a new permit to operate one more stage carriage which is not permissible under Section 68-FF; the economy and co-ordination, two of the factors, which govern the approved scheme, will be seriously infringed if the variation is to be granted of the existing permit condition; even if there is an inter-state agreement under Section 63 of the Act for increasing the number of trips, such an agreement cannot override the provisions of Chapter IV-A by virtue of Section 68-B of the Act. Section 63 being in Chapter IV of the Act, the scheme approved under Chapter IV-A will prevail over it; the approved scheme will exclude the operation of other stage carriage services on the route/area covered by the scheme, except those whose names are mentioned in the scheme and to the extent to which such exception is allowed; the provisions in Chapter IV-A are devised to override the provisions of Chapter IV and it is expressly so enacted, the provisions of Chapter IV-A are clear and complete regarding the manner and effect of the ‘takeover’ of the operation of a road transport service by the State Transport Undertaking in relation to any area or route or portion thereof - Adarsh Travels Bus Service [(1985) 4 SCC 557]; a necessary consequence of those provisions is that no private operator can operate his vehicle on any part or portion of a notified area or notified route unless authorised so to do by the terms of the scheme itself. He may not operate on any part or portion of the notified route or area on the mere ground that the permit, as originally granted to him, covered the notified route or area - Adarsh Travels Bus Service [(1985) 4 SCC 557]. Having regard to the above propositions, the Constitution Bench held that the decision in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.A. Jayaram [(1984) Supp. SCC 244] is no longer a good law and the decision in Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. M.A. Egappan [(1987) 2 SCC 47] stands approved, which is in tune with the Constitution Bench decision in Adarsh Travels Bus Service [(1985) 4 SCC 557] and the observations made in R. Raghuram v. P. Jayarama Naidu [(1990) Supp. SCC 361] stands approved.

                  17.1.   In G.T. Venkataswamy Reddy [(2016) 8 SCC 402] the Constitution Bench, after a detailed analysis of Section 57 under Chapter IV of Act IV of 1939, analysed other sections, in the foremost, Section 68-B of the Act, which falls under Chapter IV-A, and which states that all the provisions contained in Chapter IV-A shall have supervening effects on any inconsistent provisions contained in Chapter IV or any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. Under Chapter IV, Sections 42 to 68 of the Act have been listed. Insofar as Section 57(8) of the Act is concerned, the Constitution Bench noticed that, in the manner in which the said provision has been interpreted, there will be no inconsistency with any of the provisions contained in Chapter IV-A. Therefore, Section 57 will apply in all force even in respect of the prescription contained in the provisions under Chapter IV-A, viz., Sections 68-A to 68-I of the Act. The Constitution Bench then proceeded to analyse Section 68-C of the Act, keeping the said broad statutory prescription vis- à-vis Section 57 of the Act, and found that the formulation of a scheme is to be prepared and published by a State Transport Undertaking in respect of the services to be provided in any area or route to be covered. The underlying object for such formulation of a scheme for its preparation and publication must be for providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co- ordinated road transport service with the paramount consideration of public interest, and such scheme should be prepared and published. Section 68-C of the Act, therefore, at the very inception of the formulation of a scheme by a State Transport Undertaking, should have the basic consideration of efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated transport service in the public interest. Once such a scheme is formulated with the above avowed objects in mind and is notified under Section 68-D, on the publication of such a scheme in the official gazette as well as in the newspaper in the regional language circulating in the area or route, which is proposed to be covered by such scheme, every person who is already providing transport facility in that area or route or any association representing persons interested in the provision of road transport facilities recognised by the State as well as the local authority or police authority, who are also located in that area or route, will be entitled to raise their objections or their representations within 30 days from the date of publication to the State Government. Under sub-section (2) of Section 68-D of the Act, the State Government after considering the objections and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the objector or his representative as well as the representatives of the State Transport Undertakings can either approve the scheme as proposed or give a modified scheme. Under Section 68-E of the Act, the scheme can be cancelled in the form in which it was approved or can be modified by following the very same procedure prescribed under Sections 68-C and 68-D of the Act. However, the State Transport Undertaking, with the previous approval of the State Government, can modify the scheme without following the procedure laid down in Sections 68-C and 68-D of the Act, under the proviso to Section 68-E. That apart under sub-section (2) of Section 68-E of the Act, the State Government is fully empowered to modify any scheme published under sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Act after giving an opportunity of hearing to the State Transport Undertaking, as well as, to any other person who in the opinion of the State Government is likely to be affected by the proposed modification. Once the approved scheme comes into effect, under Section 68-F of the Act, the State Transport Undertakings can be issued with the required permits.

18. In Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Rajesh K. [2025 (3) KHC SN 10 : 2025 KHC OnLine 396], one of the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for KSRTC and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the State and its officials was on the locus standi of the private operators- petitioners to challenge the notification dated 03.05.2023, i.e., the final scheme published vide G.O.(P)No.13/2023/Trans. dated 03.05.2023, on the ground that their right to operate on long- distance routes has already been extinguished by the operation of law as per the Super Class Scheme published vide G.O.(P)No. 73/2013/Tran. dated 16.07.2013 and the Kerala Motor Vehicles (1st Amendment) Rules, 2017, published vide G.O.(P)No.6/ 2017/Trans. dated 15.03.2017. The said contention was left open to be considered by the appropriate authority at the appropriate stage, since a reading of the impugned judgment dated 06.11.2024 would not show that such a contention was ever raised

during the course of arguments, before the learned Single Judge. Moreover, as discernible from the files relating to the notification dated 03.05.2023, the objections received from the private operators and others are not confined to those made by long- distance private operators alone. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment of the Division Bench read thus;

                  “12. The learned Senior Counsel for the party respondents in W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and also the respective counsel for the party respondents in the connected matters pointed out that the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for KSRTC and the learned Senior Government Pleader on the locus standi of the private operators-writ petitioners to challenge Ext.P14 notification dated 03.05.2023, on the ground that their right to operate on long-distance routes have already been extinguished by the operation of law as per Ext.R6(a) Super Class Scheme and Ext.R6(b) notification, whereby sub-clause (oa) in Rule 2 of the said Rules was re-lettered as sub-clause (ob) and before sub- clause (ob) as so re-lettered, sub-clause (oa) as per the said amendment was inserted, was never raised before the learned Single Judge. In response to the above argument, the learned Senior Counsel for KSRTC and also the learned Special Government Pleader would point out the specific stand taken by KSRTC in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit dated 09.06.2023, producing therewith a copy of Exts.R6(a) and R6(b) notifications.

                  13. On the rival contentions raised at the Bar on the above aspect, we notice that, as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the party respondents in W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and the respective counsel for the party respondents in the connected matters, a reading of the impugned judgment dated 06.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge would not show that such a contention was ever raised during the course of arguments, before the learned Single Judge. Moreover, as discernible from the files relating to Ext.P14 notification, which was made available for the perusal of this Court, the objections received from the private operators and others, are not confined to those made by long-distance private operators alone. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to leave open the said contention to be raised and considered by the appropriate authority at the appropriate stage.”

                  18.1.   In Rajesh K. [2025 (3) KHC SN 10], the Division Bench found that the notification dated 03.05.2023 is one issued in total disregard of the requirements of the statutory provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act and also the law laid down in the decisions on the point. The Division Bench found no reason to interfere with the judgment dated 06.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.17469 of 2023 and connected matters, and the writ appeals were accordingly dismissed. Paragraphs 74, 75 and also the last paragraph of the said decision read thus;

                  “74. In the instant case, a perusal of the files relating to Ext.P14 notification makes it explicitly clear that there is total non-application of mind on the objections raised by the writ petitioners and others, regarding the proposal made in Ext.P9 notification for modification of Ext.P2 scheme. Viewed in the light of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Adarsh Travels Bus Service [(1985) 4 SCC 557], which was followed by the law laid down by another Constitution Bench in G.T. Venkataswamy Reddy [(2016) 8 SCC 402], which are rendered in the context of the provisions under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939), which are pari materia to the provisions contained in Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and also the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in H.C. Narayanappa [AIR 1960 SC 1073] the conclusion is irresistible that Ext.P14 notification is one issued in total disregard to the requirements of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra. The files relating to Ext.P14 notification would not show that the State Government to whom the power is delegated acted judicially in modifying the notified scheme in Ext.P2. The guarantee conferred by Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with Rule 246 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, upon persons likely to be affected by the proposal for modification of a notified scheme, is a guarantee of an opportunity to put forth their objections and to make representations against the acceptance of the scheme, can be regarded as a real opportunity only if in the consideration of the objections there is a judicial approach.

                  75. A decision taken by the State Government, in the exercise of its powers under Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with the relevant provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, modifying an approved scheme, can be challenged by an affected private operator, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the absence of any statutory remedy. The absence of reasons will make nugatory and ineffective the exercise of the power of judicial review by this Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. During the course of arguments, it is not in dispute that the Government files relating to Ext.P14 notification do not disclose any reason whatsoever for disposing or rejecting the objections in the representations made by the private operators and others, made pursuant to Ext.P9 notification dated 14.09.2020. There is nothing on record to suggest that due consideration was given to such objections. It is well settled that the hearing required to be given is not an empty formality. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 06.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.17469 of 2023 and connected matters.

                  In the result, these writ appeals fail, and they are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.”

19. In the Super Class Scheme notified vide G.O.(P)No. 73/2013/Trans. dated 16.07.2013 [Ext.R3(a) in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024], it is stated as follows;

                  “SRO No.555/2013:- WHEREAS, the Government of Kerala is of the opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated passenger road transport service, it is necessary in the public interest that Fast Passenger services, Super Deluxe services, Super Express services, Super-Fast services and Luxury services should be run and operated in the State of Kerala exclusively by the State Transport Undertaking.

                  AND WHEREAS, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in its judgment in W.A.No.1591 of 1997 and connected cases had struck down the definition of "fleet owner" in clause (eb) of rule 2 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 on the ground that it is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution;

                  AND WHEREAS, in Poulose v. State of Kerala [1997 (2) ILR 821] the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in its judgment by the Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice of Kerala has held that if the number of ordinary services operated by the private sector is reduced and fare is also hiked for conversion of ordinary services to fast passenger service, the common man will be deprived of the benefit that had accrued to him when the buses were being operated as ordinary services;

                  AND WHEREAS, the permits given to run ordinary services in the private sector are being converted to run and operate Fast Passenger services, Super Deluxe services, Super Express services, Super-Fast services and Luxury services resulting in the reduction in the number of ordinary services, hike of fares, denial of the benefits, conveniences and concessions enjoyed by common man and the students from the transport system in the State;

                  AND WHEREAS, the Government consider that it is necessary to formulate, for public interest, a scheme for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service by the State Transport undertaking;

                  AND WHEREAS, the proposal regarding the scheme for the purpose was previously published as per Notification No. 5651/B2/09/Tran, dated 2nd August, 2012, in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.1706 dated the 13th August, 2012 and in Kerala Kaumudi daily dated 28th September, 2012 and in the Mathrubhumi daily dated 30th September, 2012 for the areas covered by the scheme as required by section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988);

                  AND WHEREAS, the State Government, after having considered the objections received against the draft scheme and       after having heard the objectors and the representatives of the State Transport Undertaking, and are satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest to implement the said scheme;

                  NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988), the Government of Kerala hereby approve the following scheme, that the passenger road transport service as per the particulars thereunder, should be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking:-”         (underline supplied)

20. The Super Class Scheme notified vide Ext.R3(a) notification dated 16.07.2013, provides that the passenger road transport service as per the particulars thereunder, i.e., Fast Passenger services, Super Deluxe services, Super Express services, Super-Fast services and Luxury services shall be run and operated in the State of Kerala, exclusively by the State Transport Undertaking, i.e., KSRTC, in the public interest, for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co- ordinated passenger road transport service.

21. Clauses (1) to (18) of the Super Class Scheme, notified vide Ext.R3(a) notification dated 16.07.2013, provide for the proposed route and area of service, its nature and matters relating to the scheme. Clauses (1) to (3), (5), (6) and (18) of the said scheme read thus;

                 

                 

22. A plain reading of Clauses (1) to (3) of the Super Class Scheme, notified vide Ext.R3(a) notification dated 16.07.2013, would make it explicitly clear that the area in relation to which the scheme is proposed is all over the State of Kerala; the class of service is Fast Passenger services, Super-Fast services, Super Express services, Super Deluxe services and Luxury services; and the services are to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking to the exclusion of other persons. As per Clause (3), the permits issued in the private sector on or before the date of the notification shall be allowed to continue till the dates of expiry of the respective permits. Thereafter, no permits shall be renewed, and no permit, regular or temporary, shall be issued afresh. As per the proviso to Clause (3), the exclusion shall be partial till the existing Private Services operating routes are replaced as provided. As per Clause (18), the right to operate any class of service other than ordinary service in the State of Kerala and to increase the trips shall be reserved exclusively with State Transport Undertakings.

23. The definition given to ‘Fast Passenger Service’, ‘Luxury Service’, ‘Super Deluxe Service’, ‘Super Express Service’ and ‘Super-Fast Service’ in clauses (ea), (ka), (ua), (ub) and (uc) of Rule 2 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, by the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 2013 and also Clauses (1), (3), (5) and (6) of the Super Class Scheme, notified vide Ext.R3(a) notification dated 16.07.2013 were under challenge before this Court in W.P.(C)No.18813 of 2013 and connected matters.

24. In Kerala State Limited Stop Stage Carriages Operators Association v. Government of Kerala [2014 (2) KLT 135], a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the meaning given to ‘Fast Passenger Service’ and other higher classes of vehicles, confining the operation to State Transport Undertaking alone, in the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 2013, is ultra vires the Motor Vehicles Act. Paragraphs 41 and 42 of the said decision read thus;

                  “41. The issue involved is whether the power under Section 212, read with Section 95 or 96, can be relied upon to support the amended provision. It is not in dispute that, as far as Chapter V is concerned, there is no differentiation between State Transport Undertaking and private stage carriage operators. The judicial opinion is enormous and it is clear from the Supreme Court judgments in Sher Singh Gandhimas Transport [(1984) 1 SCC 107], Ishwar Singh Bagga [(1987) 1 SCC 101], Mithilesh Garg [(1992) 1 SCC 168], etc., that the State Transport Undertaking will have to compete with the private stage carriage operators in regard to the grant or otherwise of the permit under Chapter V. Therefore, when a rule is framed by giving a meaning to ‘fast passenger service’ and other higher class of services, stating that it can be operated only by State Transport Undertaking, it virtually excludes private operators from the field. It is not in dispute that while formulating a scheme, definitely, the State Transport Undertaking can be given preference under Chapter VI.

                  42. Section 212 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not give any separate power to the Government to make rules. Each chapter contains specific provisions providing the rule- making power. Section 212 only relates to the procedure for publication of the rule and the procedure to be followed while enacting the rule. Therefore, Section 212 will not enable the Government to make a rule, which is available only under Chapter IV, V or VI, as the case may be. Therefore, one has to verify whether such a rule can be brought into effect. No doubt, Chapter VI only gives power to the Government to formulate a scheme. As far as stage carriage operators are concerned, their rights are confined to Chapter V. The decisions referred above clearly indicate that, as far as Chapter V is concerned, there cannot be any differentiation between the stage carriage operators in the private sector and STU. Viewed in that angle, the source of power to introduce such a definition excluding private operators is lacking. In State of T.N. v. Krishnamoorthy [(2006) 4 SCC 517], the Supreme Court has narrated the well-recognised grounds for challenging a subordinate legislation, one of which is failure to conform to the Statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act. Hence, I am of the view that the meaning given to ‘Fast Passenger Service’ and other higher classes of vehicles confining the operation to State Transport Undertaking alone in the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 2013, is ultra vires the Motor Vehicles Act.”       (underline supplied)

                  24.1.   In Kerala State Limited Stop Stage Carriages Operators Association [2014 (2) KLT 135], the learned Single Judge noticed that the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as evident from various decisions of the Apex Court, clearly indicates that there is no distinction between private stage carriage operators and State Transport Undertakings. Whereas, as far as State Transport Undertakings are concerned, a separate statutory provision has been made under Chapter VI of the said Act. As per Section 98 coming under Chapter VI, the provisions of Chapter VI, the rules and orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in Chapter V. Section 99 coming under Chapter VI gives the power to the State Government to formulate a proposal regarding a scheme, giving the particulars of the nature of services proposed to be rendered and other specifications, and to formulate such scheme for the effective co-ordinated transport service in public interest. Section 100 of the Act relates to the consideration of objections by the Government before approving the scheme; Section 102 gives power to the State Government to modify the scheme at any point of time after complying with certain requirements; Section 103 relates to the issuance of permits to State Transport Undertakings; Section 104 relates to the restriction on the grant of permits in respect of a notified area or notified route; and Section 107 gives power to the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter VI. After referring to the above statutory provisions and the law laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments, the learned Single Judge found that specific statutory provisions have been enacted under the Motor Vehicle Act to ensure the formulation of a proper procedure for an effective and efficient road transport service in the State through State Transport Undertakings.

                  24.2.   In Kerala State Limited Stop Stage Carriages Operators Association [2014 (2) KLT 135], the learned Single Judge held that, under Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is open for the State Government in public interest to formulate a scheme for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service. Such road transport service shall be in general or any particular class of service. It could be in relation to any area or route or any portion thereof to be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking. The exclusion could be complete or partial. Section 99 of the Act does not impose any restriction on the Government in undertaking to operate on all routes in the State, to operate such number of services or trips as per traffic demand. If the Government decides to exclude private operators from certain routes or all the routes in the State, insofar as the power is available with the State Government under Chapter VI, and as stated above, the scheme cannot be brushed aside. It might be true that some or all the private stage carriage operators will be affected by the scheme and the Government intends to control the entire transportation service by operating through State Transport Undertaking, but insofar as the statute clearly prescribes the nature of power and the right of the Government to formulate such schemes, the scheme thus framed cannot be stated to be inconsistent with any other provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, especially in view of Section 98 of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge concluded that the petitioners have not succeeded in challenging the validity of the scheme. Paragraph 43 and also the last paragraph of the said decision read thus;

                  “43. As far as the scheme is concerned, it is notified after complying with the procedure prescribed under Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act. The contention of the petitioners is that the scheme is vague and it does not have the required particulars. Under Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is open for the State Government in public interest to formulate a scheme for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service. Such road transport service shall be in general or any particular class of service. It could be in relation to any area or route or any portion thereof to be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking. The exclusion could be complete or partial. The scheme should give particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered, and other relevant particulars. Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, does not impose any restriction on the Government in undertaking to operate on all routes in the State, to operate such number of services or trips as per traffic demand. In Ramesh Chand [(1979) 4 SCC 776], the Supreme Court held that failure to specify the number of services would not invalidate the draft scheme or the approved scheme. True that the said judgment came to be passed in slightly different factual circumstances, but insofar as the scheme has been formulated after complying with the procedural formalities and it being a policy of the Government, supported by statutory provisions and also Article 19(6)(ii) of the Constitution of India, despite the contentions urged on behalf of the learned counsel for petitioners, I do not think that this Court can exercise the power of judicial review to set aside the scheme. The scheme is a policy of the Government, and it is after notice to the stakeholders that the scheme has been formulated. If the Government decides to exclude private operators from certain routes or all the routes in the State, insofar as the power is available with the State Government under Chapter VI, and as stated above, the scheme cannot be brushed aside. Though it is contended that the scheme is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as long as the State Government is vested with the power to formulate such schemes for an effective, efficient, adequate co-ordinated transport service in public interest, the fact that the Government does not have such facilities or the State Transport Undertaking has no such facilities cannot be gone into at this stage of the proceedings. Once the scheme is formulated, it is for the Government and the concerned State Transport Undertaking to decide regarding the implementation of the scheme. This Court cannot proceed on the basis that the Government will not be in a position to implement the said scheme. It might be true that some or all the private stage carriage operators will be affected by the scheme and the Government intends to control the entire transportation service by operating through State Transport Undertaking, but insofar as the Statute clearly prescribes the nature of power and the right of the Government to formulate such schemes, the scheme thus framed cannot be stated to be inconsistent with any other provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act especially in view of Section 98 of the Act. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioners have not succeeded in challenging the validity of the scheme.”     (underline supplied)

25. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in Kerala State Limited Stop Stage Carriages Operators Association [2014 (2) KLT 135] was under challenge in W.A.No.667 of 2014 and connected matters. One set of appeals was by the operators of private stage carriages. The other set of appeals was by either the Government of Kerala or KSRTC. The tagged along solitary writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C)No.24421 of 2014, was filed by a private operator challenging the constitutional validity of Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

26. In Mohankumar R. v. Government of Kerala [2016 (2) KLT 963], on the question as to whether the impugned provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, are ultra vires the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Constitution of India, the Division Bench noticed that the rule-making power is undoubtedly available in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The rules made in exercise of such power are pieces of subordinate legislation, which can be subject to judicial scrutiny only on grounds available on that premise. The Division Bench found that excessive exercise of rule-making power is neither pleaded nor established. The rules are not established to be capricious or arbitrary that       no reasonably   prudent person or institution bestowed with subordinate legislative power, particularly in terms of the rule-making power under the Motor Vehicles Act, would or ought to have ever made them. Such rules, having been so made, and because it has not been demonstrated that they violate the provisions of Part III of the Constitution dealing with fundamental rights, the Division Bench concluded that it cannot but uphold those rules as valid. Paragraph 12 of the said decision reads thus;

                  “12. Issue No. III: Are the impugned provisions of the Rules ultra vires the 1988 Act and the Constitution? The rule- making power is undoubtedly available in terms of the provisions of the 1988 Act. Therefore, rules made in exercise of such power are pieces of subordinate legislation. Therefore, they can be subject to judicial scrutiny only on grounds available on that premise. Excessive exercise of rule-making power is not pleaded or established. The impugned rules are not established to be capricious or arbitrary, that no reasonably prudent person or institution bestowed with subordinate legislative power, particularly in terms of the rule-making power under the 1988 Act, would or ought to have ever made. This is because if such ground is not established, it would essentially be a matter within the subordinate legislative domain of the repository of the power to make those rules; as part of, and in exercise of, the subordinate legislative power to make rules. Therefore, such rules having been so made, and because it has not been demonstrated that they are in violation of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution dealing with fundamental rights, we cannot but uphold those rules as valid. We say this as the primordial principle to confirm the validity of the impugned Rules. We have seen the reasons rendered by the learned single Judge to uphold those Rules. We do not find any way to dissuade ourselves from the reasoning of the learned single Judge in that regard, either. In this view of the matter, we find no ground to interfere with the findings of the learned single Judge upholding the impugned provisions of the Rules. We confirm them.”

                  (underline supplied)

                  26.1.   In Mohankumar R. v. Government of Kerala [2016 (2) KLT 963], the Division Bench repelled the challenge levied to Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the writ petition, observing that legislative competence is not an issue levied to challenge Section 99 of the Act. The cream and content of the challenge through the writ petition is nothing but the emulsification of the personal, private and commercial interest of the writ petitioner. Equally so, is the interest of those writ appellants who have endeavoured to support the writ petition. In the backdrop of the matter, the larger constitutional perspective and the fact that the impugned statutory provision has been made in discharge of the constitutional power to legislate, the Division Bench did not see that the said provision is unconstitutional, particularly when no reckonable infraction of Article 14 has been established to the satisfaction of the Court, impeaching that provision, which is part of a primary legislation.

                  26.2.   In Mohankumar R. [2016 (2) KLT 963], on the sustainability of the Super Class Scheme, notified vide notification dated 16.07.2013, the Division Bench held that, once the power to make a scheme is demonstrated to be available in terms of the constitutional scheme of the relevant Statute, it would be impermissible for the writ court, or any other judicial authority for that matter, to visit any scheme formulated and issued by the competent authority in terms of the statutory provisions which are, by themselves, sustainable on the face of the Constitution. Therefore, the horizons of judicial review in such matters cannot be stretched to encompass any view that would fall beyond the purview of judicial intervention. The Division Bench rejected the plea against the finding of the learned Single Judge as to the validity of the impugned scheme, and the challenge levelled against that scheme. Paragraph 14 of the said decision reads thus;

                  “14. Issue No. V: Sustainability of the impugned scheme: Section 99 of the 1988 Act and the impugned Rules having been upheld above, judicial review of the impugned scheme cannot go overboard to lay down any principle or schematic approach based on the administrative wisdom or practical approach by the judicial authority, namely, this Court sitting in judicial review; either through the learned Single Judge, being the authority as regards exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the first instance, or through the Division Bench in writ appeal, which is an intra- court appeal under the provisions of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. Once the power to make a scheme is demonstrated to be available in terms of the constitutional scheme of the relevant Statute, it would be impermissible for the writ court, or any other judicial authority for that matter, to visit any scheme formulated and issued by the competent authority in terms of the statutory provisions which are, by themselves, sustainable on the face of the Constitution. Therefore, the horizons of judicial review in such matters cannot be stretched to encompass any view that would fall beyond the purview of judicial intervention. The precedents referred to by the learned counsel for the parties do not, in any way, help the appellants or the writ petitioner. The plea against the finding of the learned Single Judge as to the validity of the impugned scheme and the challenge levelled to that scheme are only to be rejected. We do so.”        (underline supplied)

                  26.3.   In Mohankumar R. [2016 (2) KLT 963], on the effect and practical impact of the Super Class Scheme, notified vide notification dated 16.07.2013, and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Rules, and the factual scenario available in terms of the interlocutory orders, the Division Bench held that, if KSRTC does not apply for grant of permit through any route which is a notified route or covered by a scheme, temporary permits can be granted to the private operators based on temporary need, and, if there are routes for which permits have been granted to KSRTC in relation to notified routes or notified areas and if the KSRTC is not utilising the permits by operating the services, it will be open to the Regional Transport Authority to act on any application for grant of temporary permits to the private operators over such routes. The Division Bench ordered that the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall act in conformity with the declaration made in paragraph 15 of the decision. Paragraph 15 of the decision reads thus; .

                  “15. Issue No.VI: The effect and practical impact of the scheme and the provisions of the 1988 Act and the Rules and the factual scenario available in terms of the interlocutory orders: Section 104 of the 1988 Act specifically restricts the grant of permits in respect of a notified area or notified route. That provision fell for pointed consideration in Punjab Roadways v. Punja Sahib Bus and Transport Co. [(2010) 5 SCC 235]. It was noted therein that through the proviso to Section 104, an exception has been carved out to the effect that where no application for permit has been made by the State Transport Undertaking in respect of any notified area or notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, may grant temporary permits to any person in respect of any such notified area or notified route subject to the condition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of permit to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of that area or route. The Apex Court held that same is the situation in respect of a case where a State Transport Undertaking, in spite of the grant of permit, does not operate the service or surrenders the permit granted or is not utilising the permit. In such a situation, it should be deemed that no application for a permit has been made by the State Transport Undertaking, and it is open to the Regional Transport Authority to grant a temporary permit if there is a temporary need. By granting regular permits to the private operators, the Regional Transport Authority will be upsetting the ratio fixed under the scheme, which is legally impermissible. The net effect of principles stated in Punjab Roadways (supra) is that, even if a State Transport Undertaking has been granted a permit and if it is not utilising that permit, it would be open to the Regional Transport Authority to grant a temporary permit, if there is a temporary need. Practically stated, the application by a State Transport Undertaking for a permit in respect of a scheme is necessarily a clear indicator as to the temporary need as well. Therefore, when the State Transport Undertaking has been granted a permit and is not utilising the permit, it would be open to the Regional Transport Authority to act on any application for the grant of a temporary permit to a private operator. In Luka Devassia v. Regional Transport [2015 (3) KLJ 76], a Division Bench of this Court held, among other things, that the impugned scheme has not created a situation by which the existing operators' rights have been totally taken away. We are in agreement with that precedent, and we follow it. Through a common interlocutory order dated 23.12.2014 in these appeals and writ petition, this Court, after hearing the counsel for all the parties, referred to the findings in the judgment impugned in the appeals and also to different other materials and statutory provisions in the 1988 Act. It was ultimately concluded and ordered that applications of private operators for temporary permits can be considered even on notified routes covered by the scheme if as on the date of consideration of the application the State Transport Corporation has not applied for a permit and in such event, temporary permits be issued if other conditions as to grant are complied with, subject to the rider that the permits, if any, thus issued shall cease to be effective on the date on which the State Transport Corporation commences operation on the very same route. This interlocutory direction issued by this Court on 23.12.2014 is nothing but a concomitant corollary of the ratio of Punjab Roadways (supra). Resultantly, it has also to be taken that, even where the State Transport Corporation has applied for and obtained a permit to operate and is not utilising the permit by operating services in accordance with the grant, the private operators would be eligible to apply for a temporary permit. Obviously, the existence of a temporary need would be established under such cases with reference to the fact that the State Transport Corporation had applied for and obtained permits. Therefore, the net effect of these situations is that if the State Transport Corporation does not apply for grant of permit through any route which is a notified route or covered by a scheme, temporary permits can be granted to the private operators based on temporary need, and if there are routes for which permits have been granted to the State Transport Corporation in relation to notified routes or notified areas and if the State Transport Corporation is not utilising the permit by operating the services, it will be open to the Regional Transport Authority to act on any application for grant of temporary permit to the private operators over such routes. This conclusion is the true effect and resultant practical impact of the scheme in the backdrop of the relevant provisions of the 1988 Act and the Rules in the light of the different precedents laid down by the Apex Court, in particular Punjab Roadways (supra), and the decisions referred to therein. It is so declared.”    (underline supplied)

27. The specific stand taken by KSRTC in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit dated 15.11.2024 filed in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024 is that there were altogether 241 Super-Fast permits in the private sector. All these permits in the private sector are replaced by KSRTC. Thus, in view of Ext.R3(a) scheme of 2013, the right of private stage carriages to get regular permits is limited to ordinary service.

28. Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988, inserted by the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1999, with effect from 03.02.1999, ‘ordinary service’ means service, which is operated on a route having a distance of not more than 140 kilometers with one or more stops in every fare stage.

29. In the year 2017, by the Kerala Motor Vehicles (1st Amendment) Rules, 2017 - G.O.(P)No.6/2017/Trans. dated 15.03.2017 - [Ext.R3(b) in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024], in the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, in Rule 2, sub-clause (oa) was re-lettered as sub-clause (ob), and before sub-clause (ob) as so re-lettered, the following sub-clause was inserted, with effect from 15.03.2017, namely;

                  "(oa) ‘Ordinary Limited Stop Service’ means a service, which is operated on a route having a distance of not exceeding 140 Kilometres with limited number of stops, having at least one stop in every fare stage;"  (underline supplied)

30. The Government of Kerala vide Annexure III notification in W.A.No.2342 of 2025 – G.O.(P)No.8/2017/Tran. dated 23.03.2017 - notified a modified scheme in relation to 31 routes all over Kerala, notified under G.O.(P)No.42/2009/Tran. dated 14.07.2009 and published as SRO No.608/2009 in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.1272 dated 14.07.2009. In the said notification dated 23.03.2017, it is stated as follows;

                  “SRO No.151/2017.- WHEREAS, the Government had approved a scheme in public interest for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated passenger road transport service in relation to 31 routes all over Kerala as per Notification issued under G.O.(P)No.42/2009/Tran. dated 14th July, 2009 and published as SRO No.608/2009 in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.1272 dated 14th July, 2009;

                  WHEREAS, the Government of Kerala having the opinion that the above said notification requires modification;

                  AND WHEREAS the proposal regarding the modification scheme for the purpose was published as draft scheme to modify the said scheme, as per Notification No.12878/B1/ 2015/Tran. dated 8th February, 2016 in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.359 dated 11th February, 2016 and in the Deshabhimani daily dated 15th February, 2016 and Kerala Kaumudi daily dated 15th February, 2016 as required by sub- section (2) of Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988) read with clause (b) of Rule 246 of the Kerala Motor vehicles Rules, 1989;

                  AND WHEREAS, the State Government, after having considered the objections received against the draft scheme and after having heard the objectors and representatives of State Transport Undertaking, is satisfied that it is necessary in public interest to implement the scheme relating to the proposal with modifications;

                  NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central vehicles Act 59 of 1988) read with clause (d) of Rule 246 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the Government of Kerala hereby approve the proposal regarding the modified scheme as stated below that the passenger road transport service as per the particulars in the Schedule given below should be run and operated exclusively by the State Transport Undertaking.”

(underline supplied)

31. Clauses (4) and (5) of the modified scheme in relation to 31 routes all over Kerala, notified on 23.03.2017, read thus;

                 

                 

32. Challenging the validity of Clause (4) of the Annexure III scheme notified vide G.O.(P)No.8/2017/Tran. dated 23.03.2017, W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017 and connected matters were filed before this Court by the holders of regular stage carriage permits on select routes that had been reserved for KSRTC vide a scheme notified by G.O.(P)No.42/2009/Tran. dated 14.07.2009 [Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017]. As per the said scheme, regular permits issued in the private sector prior to 09.05.2006 could be renewed only subject to the State Transport Undertaking not offering a substitute service in the vacancy that had resulted. It was also clarified that regular permits issued after 09.05.2006 would not be renewed, and only temporary permits would be issued after the expiry of the validity of the regular permits already issued.

33. W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017 and connected matters were considered by the Division Bench along with the writ appeals filed by KSRTC against the common judgment dated 15.03.2018 of a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.30161 of 2017 and connected matters, allowing the writ petitions preferred by private stage carriage operators, seeking a consideration of their applications for variation/extension of their temporary route permits, on non- notified routes. KSRTC impugned the said judgment on the ground that the directions contained therein militate against the express provisions of Clause (4) of the scheme dated 23.03.2017.

34. In Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617 : 2018 (4) KLJ 145], the Division Bench noticed that though the scheme notified vide G.O.(P)No.42/2009/Tran. dated 14.07.2009 [Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No. 11825 of 2017] was challenged before this Court, the writ petitions were dismissed, and the said scheme attained finality. While so, a fresh scheme [Ext.P7 in W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017] was notified vide G.O.(P)No.73/2013/Trans. dated 16.07.2013 [Ext. R3(a) in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024], which is a service-centric scheme, whereby the right to operate all classes of services, other than ordinary service, in respect of stage carriages in the State of Kerala, was given exclusively to the State Transport Undertaking, i.e., KSRTC. Though the said scheme was also impugned through various writ petitions, the said writ petitions were dismissed, and the said scheme has also attained finality. Effectively, therefore, Ext.P5 scheme in relation to 31 routes and Ext.P7 scheme that reserved all higher classes of services to KSRTC, governed the rights of private stage carriage operators on the notified routes and in respect of the notified services. Through notification dated 16.07.2013 [Ext.P8 in W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017], the State Government amended the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, substituting the definition of other services, in order to make it in tune with Ext.P7 scheme that was notified. On account of the combined operation of Exts.P5 and P7 schemes, the stage carriage operators in the private sector faced many difficulties, since their operations were limited to ordinary services, save for those permits that were protected under Exts.P5 and P7 schemes. With a view to mitigate the hardship caused to the private operators, the State Government issued G.O.(Ms.)No.45/2015/Trans. dated 20.08.2015 [Ext.P9 in W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017], which envisaged the grant of Ordinary Limited Stop [OLS] service permits to all operators who were operating higher class of services, and who were denied a renewal of such permits pursuant to Ext.P7 scheme. Ext.P9 Government order made it clear that the permits would be granted in terms of the order, notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (4) of Ext.P5 scheme. Ext.P9 Government order also indicated that necessary amendments would be made to Ext.P5 scheme, as also to the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, so as to give effect to the proposals in the said order. Ext.P9 Government order, i.e., G.O.(Ms.)No.45/2015/Trans. dated 20.08.2015, reads thus;

                  “As per G.O.(P)No.73/2013/Trans. dated 16.07.2013 issued under SRO No.555/2013, the Government approved a scheme specifying that fast passenger services, Super-Fast Services, Super Express Services, Super Deluxe Services and Luxury Services should be run and operated by the STU, by invoking the powers conferred by sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 100 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Similarly, invoking the above powers the Government approved a scheme as per G.O.(P)No.42/09/Trans. dated 14.07.2009 and issued as SRO No.608/2009 stipulating that the passenger road transport service through 31 routes in the State should be operated by the State Transport Undertaking. Challenging the above scheme, a number of WP(C)s were filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Affected parties also filed SLPs before the Hon'ble Apex Court. In respect of the scheme notified under SRO No.608/2009, even though the Hon'ble High Court stayed the operation of Clause (4) of the scheme the Hon'ble Court upheld the scheme in the judgment dated 10.04.2015 in W.P.(C)No.14793 of 2006, W.P.(C)No. 20520 of 2009 and connected cases by dismissing the WP(C)s. Likewise, the Hon'ble High Court upheld the scheme notified under SRO No.555/2013 in W.P.(C)No.18959 of 2013 and connected cases.

                  The WA filed against the said judgment is pending before the Hon'ble High Court.

                  By virtue of the above schemes and in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the respective scheme, KSRTC applied for permits, which were being operated by the private operators. Consequent on the takeover of these permits by the KSRTC, so many private stage carriages became off-road, and a crisis emanated in the stage carriage operation sector. This emerged as a vital issue against the survival of the workers employed in their buses, as well as the owners who had made huge investments and were subjected to heavy liabilities in various banks and other financial institutions for the procurement and operation of the buses.

                  The rejection of permits to the above category of stage carriages and the withdrawal of such buses operated by the private stage carriage operators also caused impediments to the travel facilities of the public at large. Representations have also been received in the Government from various quarters urging significant action to solve this complex issue.

                  Having regard to the above situation and the impending deadlock in the stage carriage operation sector due to the total withdrawal of the private stage carriages from the notified routes and areas, the Government have examined the matter in its entirety and find it expedient to introduce certain measures as a policy decision of the Government. Accordingly, the following orders are issued:

                  1. The scheme notified as per SRO No.555/2013 shall remain as such without any modification.

                  2. The Regional Transport Authorities will issue Ordinary Limited Stop Service permits to those private stage carriages which had been operated as higher class service, such as Fast Passenger, Super Fast services, etc., and the permits of which were subsequently rejected by the Regional Transport Authorities as a result of coming into the effect of the scheme notified as SRO No.555/2013. The Regional Transport Authorities will also issue Ordinary Limited Stop service permits to those stage carriages, the permits of which are liable to be rejected by the Regional Transport Authorities, consequent on the coming into being of the scheme notified as SRO No.555/2013.

                  3. Students will be eligible for concession journey in all the ordinary limited stop services, also subject to the other conditions stipulated for granting the concession journey.

                  4. In all the stage carriages GPS will be introduced to ensure that they are operated strictly in accordance with the permit conditions. The Motor Vehicles Department will take immediate action to implement the scheme.

                  5. The STA will issue appropriate orders on the age of the buses for being operated as Ordinary Limited Stop services.

                  6. Appropriate timing will be granted by the RTAs for the operation of the Ordinary Limited Stop services within a period of 15 days, and up to the above period of 15 days, the existing timings will be in force.

                  7. The Regional Transport Authorities will issue Ordinary Limited Stop Service permits to all the existing higher-class services operated by the private operators in the routes covered under SRO No.608/09. But those permits, which are being operated as ordinary service and ordinary limited stop service, shall be allowed to continue as such in the above routes.

                  8. Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (4) of SRO No.608/2009 or Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, the Regional Transport Authorities will issue Ordinary Limited Stop service permits to those private operators, whose permits were rejected by the Regional Transport Authorities consequent to the scheme notified as per SRO No.555/2013.

                  9. The Transport Commissioner and the Chairman & Managing Director, KSRTC, will forward the necessary proposal for amending Clause (4) of SRO No.608/2009 as well as the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, within two weeks.

                  These orders will be subject to the final decision in the cases pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court.”  (underline supplied)

                  34.1.   In Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], the Division Bench noticed that, after the issuance of Ext.P9 Government order dated 20.08.2015, the State Government issued draft notification No.12878/B1/2015/Tran. dated 08.02.2016 [Ext.P10 in W.P.(C) No.11825 of 2017] for modifying Ext.P5 scheme. Clause (4) of the draft notification proposed that all permits in the private sector on or before 14.07.2009 will be permitted to operate as either Ordinary service or Ordinary Limited Stop service. It was also made clear that the maximum distance in Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules would not apply to the saved permits. Thereafter, vide notification No.536/B2/2016/Tran. dated 19.02.2016 [Ext.P11 in W.P.(C) No.11825 of 2017], a draft amendment to the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules was proposed, whereby, a new definition for ‘Ordinary Limited Stop services’ was inserted in Rule 2, without any restriction as regards maximum distance, but making it clear that the vehicle used for such services could not be older than 10 years from the date of registration of the vehicle. In response to the draft notifications proposing the modification of Ext.P5 scheme, as also an amendment to the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, objections were filed, and after a consideration of the said objections, the State Government proceeded to issue G.O.(P)No.6/2017/Tran. dated 15.03.2017 [Ext.P12 in W.P.(C) No.11825 of 2017], notifying the definition of ‘Ordinary Limited Stop Service’ with a prescription of maximum distance of 140 kilometres, but taking away the stipulation with regard to the age of the vehicle that had to be used for the services in question. Similarly, by G.O.(P)No. 8/2017/Tran. dated 23.03.2017 [Ext.P13 in W.P.(C) No.11825 of 2017], the draft scheme for modifying Ext.P5 scheme was finalised, introducing a new restriction, namely, that the maximum distance in Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules would apply to saved permits.

                  34.2.   In Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], in W.P.(C)No. 11825 of 2017 and connected matters, Exts.P12 and P13 notifications are impugned primarily on the contention that, while finalising the draft scheme and the draft rules, the principles of natural justice that had to be observed through the procedures contemplated under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, were not followed, thereby resulting in the notification of a scheme/Rule that was not valid for non-compliance with the statutory procedure. For appreciating the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petitions, the Division Bench given at paragraph 9 of the said decision, a comparative chart showing the proposed amendment and the notified amendment of Ext.P5 scheme, as also the proposed amendment to the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules. The Division Bench noticed that the petitioners in the writ petitions were essentially aggrieved by two events, viz., (i)       the finalisation of Ext.P13 scheme that modifies the earlier scheme, i.e., Ext.P5 scheme dated 14.07.2009, in a manner different from what was proposed in Ext.P10 draft scheme, and (ii)   the amendment of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules through Ext.P12 notification dated 15.03.2017, in a manner different from what was proposed in Ext.P11 draft notification dated 19.02.2016. Before the Division Bench, it was the case of the petitioners that the statutory procedure prescribed under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act and the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules mandates that, while notifying or modifying a scheme under Section 100 or Section 102 or amending a rule in terms of Section 212 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a draft is first published, the objections and suggestions received from various stakeholders considered by the State Government, and only thereafter, the scheme finalised, or the amended rule notified. It was contended that the statutory procedure is aimed at ensuring transparency and fairness in the matter of deprivation of pre-existing rights and hence, the procedure followed cannot result in the finalisation of a scheme, or amendment of a rule, in a manner different from what was proposed through the draft scheme, or the draft amendment that was notified. This was stated to be more so when the changes brought about are prejudicial to the interests of the stakeholders.

                  34.3.   In Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], with specific reference to the modifications effected to Ext.P5 scheme, the petitioners contended that, while under the said scheme, a cut-off date of 09.05.2006 was fixed, and regular permits issued in the private sector prior to the said date were permitted to be renewed only till such time as the State Transport Undertaking offered a substitute service in the vacancy, in the case of regular permits issued after the cut-off date, no renewal thereof was permitted, but temporary permits could be granted after the expiry of the regular permit. Thus, limited rights were retained for the holders of the ‘saved permits’. Thereafter, Ext.P7 scheme dated 16.07.2013 was notified, whereby the right to operate all classes of services, other than ordinary services in the State of Kerala, was conferred exclusively on the State Transport Undertaking, and noticing the plight of the operators in the private sector, the State Government, by Ext.P9 Government order dated 20.08.2015, decided to grant Ordinary Limited Stop Services (OLSS) permits to all operators who were operating higher class services and who were denied renewal pursuant to Ext.P7 scheme. These permits were to be granted notwithstanding the restrictive conditions in Clause (4) of Ext.P5 scheme. It was thereafter, and in the above factual backdrop, that a modification to Ext.P5 scheme was proposed, through Ext.P10 draft scheme, whereunder, all permit holders in the private sector, on or before 14.07.2009, would be permitted to operate as either ordinary service or OLSS, with the rider that the maximum distance specified in Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, would not apply to the said saved permits. The said rider, however, was deleted in the finalised scheme and the maximum distance in Rule 2(oa) was held applicable to ‘saved permits’. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Vijayan P.K. v. Government of Kerala [2008 (3) KHC 566] to contend that, insofar as the notified scheme varied substantially from the proposal published, and the introduction of the maximum distance rule to ‘saved permits’ was without notice to the affected parties, the same was in violation of the rules of natural justice and the introduction of the new condition cannot be legally sustained.

                  34.4.   In Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], the contention on behalf of KSTRC was that the exercise that was commenced through Ext.P10 draft notification was to modify Ext.P5 scheme and hence, the pre-existing rights that the private operators had were only those rights that were saved to them in Ext.P5 scheme. In other words, the rights that were granted to them through Ext.P9 Government order cannot be seen as flowing from Ext.P5 scheme and, therefore, since Ext.P10 draft scheme and Ext.P13 finalised scheme only granted additional rights to the holders of saved permits, they cannot be seen as prejudiced on account of the distance restriction introduced, in respect of a class of permit to which they did not have any previous entitlement.

                  34.5.   In Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], after considering the rival contentions, the Division Bench found that the law governing the formulation of schemes is to be found in Sections 99 and 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said provisions mandate that, if the State Government is of the opinion that, for the purpose of providing efficient, adequate, economical and properly guaranteed road transport services in relation to any area or route or operation thereto, these road transport services should be run and operated by the State Transport Undertakings to the exclusion, either complete or partial, of private stage carriage operators, a proposal in the official gazette shall be published as provided under Section 99 of the Act. The objections to the said proposal will be invited before the State Government under Section 100. After considering the objections and affording an opportunity to the objectors or their representatives and the representatives of the State Transport Undertaking, the State Government may approve or modify such proposals. The same procedure is followed for the purpose of modifying an existing scheme under Section 102. The provisions of Sections 99, 100 and 102 indicate that the procedure to be followed, while introducing a scheme or modifying an existing one, is one that is designed to ensure transparency and fairness in matters involving pre-existing rights of private transport operators. It follows, therefore, that there cannot be any finalisation of a scheme, which is different from the one that was proposed, and in respect of which objections were invited. The introduction of a restrictive element, i.e., the stipulation that the maximum distance limit would apply to the saved permits, while finalising a draft that did not contain such a stipulation, has, therefore, to be seen as breaching the aforesaid statutory safeguard.

                  34.6.   In Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], the Division Bench considered the question as to whether the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017 and connected matters had a pre- existing right, relatable to Ext.P5 scheme, to operate ordinary and OLS services without any restriction as regards distance. Although the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC vehemently contended that the said rights accrued to the private operators, not through Ext.P5 scheme, but only through Ext.P9 Government order dated 20.08.2015, the Division Bench was of the view that the rights/privileges granted to   the petitioners through Ext.P9 Government order cannot be seen as divorced from Ext.P5 scheme. The Division Bench noticed that Ext.P9 Government order was issued in the wake of Ext.P7 scheme, which deprived private operators of their right to operate a higher class of services in the State, and the rights granted through the said Government order were with a view to ameliorate their situation. The rights that they obtained, in respect of stage carriage operation, were pursuant to Ext.P5 scheme on notified routes and Ext.P9 Government order for operation in the State. The modification proposed by the State, through Ext.P10 notification, was with a view to incorporate their rights, as obtained through Ext.P9 Government order, in Ext.P5 scheme, through the modification procedure under Section 102. The pre-existing rights of private transport operators, prior to the modification process, have to be considered in this backdrop. Thus viewed, the conclusion is inescapable that, Ext.P10 draft scheme proposed to retain the rights obtained by the private operators through Ext.P9 Government order, while modifying Ext.P5 scheme, and while finalising the said draft scheme, the State Government could not have made the stipulation with regard to maximum distance applicable to the permits saved by Ext.P5 scheme. Therefore, the Division Bench quashed Clause (4) of Ext.P13 scheme that makes the maximum distance in Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules applicable to the ‘saved permits’.

                  34.7.   In Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], as regards the challenge in W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017 and connected matters to the validity of the amendments brought about to the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules through Ext.P12 notification dated 15.03.2017, the Division Bench noticed that the contentions raised are more or less identical to those raised in respect of the challenge to the modified scheme. It was contended that, insofar as Rule 2(oa), as amended, contained a stipulation of maximum distance of 140 km, in the definition of Ordinary Limited Stop Services, but this

stipulation was not there in the draft rule that was notified through Ext.P11 notification, the principles of natural justice, as envisaged in the statutory procedure, had been breached, thereby vitiating the amendment and rendering it invalid. Although, at first blush, it appeared that the same reasons that led to the quashing of the impugned clause in the modified scheme would lead to hold the amended rule also as invalid, on a closer scrutiny the Division Bench found that the right to operate ordinary and OLS services, without distance restrictions, was one accrued to private operators affected by Exts.P5 and P7 schemes, in terms of the said schemes, read with Ext.P9 Government order. In other words, there was no pre-existing right in the private operators, conferred under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules, to operate an OLS service. Such being the case, the draft amendment introduced, for the first time, a definition of Ordinary Limited Stop Service in the Rules. Although the definition contained in the draft notification did not stipulate a maximum distance, it is difficult to conceive of any objection that a private operator could have raised against the introduction of a new class of service for the first time. Similarly, the private operators could not have insisted that the OLS service that was being introduced had to be one without any stipulation as to maximum distance, for that would tantamount to dictating a policy to the State Government. Under the circumstances, the Division Bench repelled the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that, in introducing a stipulation as regards maximum distance, while finalising the draft rules, the State Government had breached the statutory procedure. The Division Bench noticed that, as a matter of fact, the State Government did consider the objections raised with regard to the stipulation, in the draft rules, that the vehicle used for the OLS service could not be older than ten years from the date of registration, and removed the said stipulation from the definition of OLS service while notifying the amended rule. Therefore, the Division Bench rejected the challenge to the validity of the amendment and to Ext.P12 notification, which notified the same. Accordingly, the writ petitions were partly allowed, quashing Clause (4) of Ext.P13 scheme, and repelling the challenge against Ext.P12 notification and the amendment notified thereunder.

                  34.8.   In Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], W.A.No.1098 of 2018 and connected matters were filed by KSRTC impugning the common judgment dated 15.3.2018 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.30161 of 2017 and connected matters. The said writ petitions were filed challenging the orders passed by the Regional Transport Authorities, whereby the requests made by various private stage carriage operators for a variation in their permits were rejected. The learned Single Judge set aside the rejection orders of the concerned Regional Transport Authorities and directed them to consider the requests of the petitioners for variation or extension of permits. In cases where no variation or extension was prayed for on the notified routes, the same were directed to be taken up and considered in accordance with the provisions of Section 80(3) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act. It was made clear that KSRTC would also be heard before orders are passed by the concerned Regional Transport Authorities. The Division Bench noticed that, in the writ appeals filed by KSRTC, the main ground of challenge against the judgment of the Single Judge is that the directions in the judgment effectively confer more rights/privileges on the private stage carriage operators than what has been saved to them through Clause (4) of the modified scheme. Since Clause (4) of Ext.P13 modified scheme stands quashed, the said ground taken in the writ appeals cannot survive for maintaining the appeals. Accordingly, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeals preferred by KSRTC.

35. Ext.P9 Government order referred to in the decision of the Division Bench in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], was withdrawn by the Government vide G.O.(Ms.)No.22/2020/Trans. dated 01.07.2020, stating that the said Government order, which is not in consonance with the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with clause (d) of Rule 246 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, cannot prevail over or co-exist with the statutory scheme and Rule. The Government order dated 01.07.2020 reads thus;

                  “As per G.O.(P)No.7/2013/Trans. dated 16.07.2013 published as SRO No. 555/2013, the Government of Kerala have issued a scheme for the operation of Super Class services exclusively for Kerala State Road Transport Corporation under Section 100(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As per the Scheme, Fast Passenger, Super-Fast Services, Super Deluxe Services, and other Super Class services are to be run and operated in the State of Kerala exclusively by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. As per Clause (3) of the Notification, permits issued in the private sector on or before the date of notification shall be allowed to continue till the date of expiry of the respective permits, there after no permit shall be renewed or no regular temporary permit shall be issued. The above scheme was challenged by the private operators before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and the Writ Petitions were dismissed in Kerala State Limited Stop/Stage Carriage Operators Association v. Government of Kerala [2014 (2) KLT 135] against which private operators filed Writ Appeal No.661 of 2014 and connected case before the Hon'ble High Court, and stay was not granted. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation had started about 240 number of services in the place of private operators which was being operated as Superclass service, consequent of the takeover of these permits so many private stage carriage permits were rejected by the Transport Authorities on the basis of Cause (4) of the SRO No.608/2009 and Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. In the above circumstances, private operators approached the Government, and the Government of Kerala issued G.O.(Ms.)No.45/2015/Trans. dated 20.08.2015, by which it was directed to issue Ordinary Limited Stop services to those private stage carriage operators who were operating Fast Passenger and other Super Class Services. The above said Government Order was only a temporary measure, and as per the order itself, Transport Commissioner and Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation were required to forward a necessary proposal for amending the scheme and Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. Subsequently, the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules were amended. Rule 2(oa) was incorporated, giving definition to Ordinary Limited Stop service with a prescription of maximum 140 KMs. G.O.(P)No.45/2015/ Trans. dated 20.08.2015 was issued, subject to the final decision of the cases pending before the Hon'ble High Court at that time. Subsequently, such cases were dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court in Mohan Kumar v. Government of Kerala and another, reported in [2016 (2) KLT 963]. Therefore, the private operators have no right to continue to operate on the routes having a route length above 140 KMs.

                  The Government have examined the matter in detail. Right of STU and private operators have to be governed by the scheme, which is prevailing and operating at any point of time. G.O.(P)No.45/2015/Trans. dated 20.08.2015 is not in consonance with the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with clause (d) of Rule 246 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The above G.O cannot prevail over or co-exist with statutory scheme and Rule.

                  In the circumstances, the Government consider it appropriate to withdraw G.O.(P)No.45/2015/Trans. dated 20.08.2015, read above, and it is hereby withdrawn with immediate effect.”       (underline supplied)

36. The aforesaid Government order dated 01.07.2020, whereby G.O. (P) No.45/ 2015 /Trans. dated 20.08.2015 - Ext.P9 Government order in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617] - was withdrawn, was under challenge in W.P.(C)No.11074 of 2020 and connected matters filed by the stage carriage operators, by contending that G.O.(Ms.)No.22/2020/Trans. dated 01.07.2020 was an unnecessary exercise of power because the Division Bench in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617] held the permits enjoyed by the writ petitioners in W.P.(C)No.11074 of 2020 and connected matters 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 scheme, is brought in under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Once Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617] was delivered by the Division Bench, even G.O.(P)No.45/2015/Trans. dated 20.08.2015 lost its relevance, since it had been issued only as a transitory measure, until such time as the Government brought out a valid scheme. Therefore, the petitioners prayed that either the Court declare that, on account of the declarations of Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], the petitioners are entitled to operate on the strength of the permits already enjoyed by them; or, in the alternative, to strike down the Government order dated 01.07.2020. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader for the State and the official respondents contended that the petitioners were able to operate on the routes, which are now proposed to be nationalised, solely on account of the Government order dated 20.08.2015, but when a new scheme was propounded in the year 2017, the said order was rendered without legs to stand on. Consequently, the Government withdrew it through the Government order dated 01.07.2020. Since the Government is in the process of issuing a modified scheme under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the benefit of the Government order dated 20.08.2015 cannot inure to the petitioners any more.

37. In Thomas George v. Regional Transport Authority and others [2022:KER:1750] - judgment dated 12.01.2022 in W.P.(C)No.11074 of 2020 and connected matters, the learned Single Judge held that the petitioners are operating not on the strength of the Government order dated 20.08.2015, but on the specific, indubitable and express declarations of the Division Bench in paragraph 16 of Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617]. Therefore, the act of the Government in withdrawing the Government order dated 20.08.2015, by issuing the Government order dated 01.07.2020, would really have no effect whatsoever. Paragraphs 5 to 9 of the said decision read thus;

                  “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 proceeded 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 will certainly until a modified or new scheme is brought into effect - I fail to understand how the Government will get any benefit through the “2020 G.O.”    (underline supplied)

                  37.1.   In Thomas George [2022:KER:1750], after taking note of the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader that liberty may be reserved to the competent authority, including the Government, to bring out a new or a modified scheme under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned Single Judge held that even though the Government has withdrawn the Government order dated 20.08.2015, through the Government order dated 01.07.2020, the de facto or de jure position cannot be altered; and hence, on account of the interim order dated 29.10.2021, 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 the Government brings out a modified or a new scheme as per the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge, by the judgment dated 12.01.2022, disposed of the writ petitions, confirming     the interim order dated 29.10.2021; however, clarifying that it will continue to be in effect only until such time the Government brings out a modified or new scheme under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioners are given liberty to challenge any such scheme, in accordance with law. Paragraphs 10 to 14 and also the last paragraphs of the said decision read thus;

                  ‘10. I must also record that, to a pointed question from this Court in this regard, the learned Special Government Pleader was unable to contest this issue, but prayed that liberty may be reserved to the competent Authority, including the Government, to bring out a new or a modified scheme under the provisions of the M.V. Act.

                  11.     The afore narrated facts would clearly establish that the operation of the routes now done by the petitioners is not on the basis of the “2015 G.O.”, but on the declarations of the learned Division Bench of this Court in Saju Varkey (supra).

                  12.     Resultantly, therefore, even though the Government has withdrawn 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.

                  13.     Of course, this cannot be construed to mean that this Court has ordered the Government to bring out a modified or a new scheme; and certainly, therefore, even if such is brought in, it will be open to the petitioners to challenge it appropriately, for which purpose, all their contentions are left open.

                  14.     As far as this Court is concerned and for the purpose of this writ petition, I am only considering whether these writ petitions will require to be continued on the files of this Court, merely because a modified or a new scheme is being brought in by the Government; and am certain that it is not so necessary. Resultantly, 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.

                  I also record the submissions of Sri.Santhoshkumar - learned Special Government Pleader, at this time, that the Government has not proposed a new scheme but only a modified final scheme, based on the draft which has already been published.’ (underline supplied)

38. KSRTC filed W.A.No.772 of 2022 and connected matters against the judgment dated 12.01.2022 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.11074 of 2020 and connected matters. The Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, and another filed W.A.No.931 of 2020 against the judgment dated 12.02.2020 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.3952 of 2020. In W.A.No. 931 of 2020, the Division Bench granted an interim order on 24.09.2020, which reads thus;

                  ‘Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.02.2020 in W.P. (C)No.3952 of 2020, instant writ appeal is filed by the appellant/the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, by which Learned Single Judge quashed order of the first appellant and directed to renew the permit of the petitioner by allowing the replacement and issuing a renewed permit without the condition restricting the route length to 140 kms.

                  2.       The impugned judgment reads as under:

                  “The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P5 order of the RTA, which directs him to maintain a maximum distance of 140 Km while operating an Ordinary Limited Stop Service under the permit granted to him. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the permit issued to him is a saved permit as contemplated under Ext.P4 judgment of this Court and, therefore, the restriction with regard to the route length/maximum distance will not apply to the said permit. It is stated that notwithstanding the fact that Ext.P4 judgment was brought to the notice of the RTA, the RTA passed Ext.P5 order directing the petitioner to restrict the route length to 140 Km for his service, which is an Ordinary Limited Stop Service.

                  2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

                  On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find that Ext.P5 order of the RTA is passed by overlooking the clear directions in Ext.P4 judgment of this Court. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P5 order, and direct the RTA to renew the permit of the petitioner by allowing the replacement and issuing a renewed permit without the condition restricting the route length to 140 Km. The renewed permit, as directed, shall be issued within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of the judgment before the respondents for further action.”

                  3. Mr.P. Santhosh Kumar learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the Government have issued G.O. (Ms.)No.22/2020/Trans. dated 1.7.2020, withdrawing G.O. (Ms.)No.45/2015/Trans. dated 20.8.2015. He further submitted that since G.O.(Ms.)No.45/2015/Trans. dated 20.8.2015 is withdrawn, the writ petitioner is not entitled to get the renewal of his permit on the route exceeding 140km. This Court's attention has been drawn to another notification issued on 14.9.2020 bearing No.B1/13/2016/Tran.

                  4. In the light of the above, learned Government Pleader submitted that the directions of the writ court in W.P.(C)No.3952 of 2020 dated 12th February, 2020 is contrary to the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, which has been upheld by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Saju Varkey and others [2018 (4) KHC 617].

                  5. Mr.K.V.Gopinathan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, made submissions as regards the applicability of the subsequent Government orders, i.e., G.O.(Ms.)No. 22/2020/Trans. dated 01.07.2020 and G.O.(Ms.)No. 45/2015/Trans. dated 20.08.2015. He further submitted that the appellant/respondent could not refuse to issue a permit.

                  6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellant has made a prima facie case for admission and accordingly, writ appeal is admitted.

                  7.       There shall be an interim stay of operation of the impugned judgment dated 12.2.2020 in W.P.(C)No.3952 of 2020.

                  Post after six weeks.’

                  38.1.   On 27.06.2022, when W.A.Nos.772 of 2022 to 775 of 2022 and 779 of 2022 came up for consideration, the Registry was directed to post the writ appeals filed by KSRTC along with W.A.No.931 of 2020, after two weeks, as the issues involved in those cases are connected. On 23.08.2022, the Division Bench granted an interim stay in the writ appeals filed by KSRTC against the judgment dated 12.01.2022 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.11074 of 2020 and connected matters.

                  38.2.   On 26.05.2023, when the aforesaid writ appeals came up for consideration, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for KSRTC submitted that a scheme was launched by the Government in that regard, by virtue of which the KSRTC does not intend to press the appeals. The learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that the Government is not intending to press the appeals. Therefore, by the judgment dated 26.05.2023, the Division Bench closed the appeals; however, the questions of law and facts raised by the appellants are left open. The judgment dated 26.05.2023 of the Division Bench reads thus;

                  “The captioned writ appeals except one are filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation; and one of the appeals is by the State Government challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in various writ petitions. The subject issue relates to the operation of stage carriages exceeding 140 km.

                  2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Ranjit Thampan appearing for the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, submitted that a scheme is launched by the Government in that regard, by virtue of which the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation is not intending to press the appeals.

                  3. Learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that the Government is not intending to press the appeals filed by the Government.

                  Therefore, the appeals are closed accordingly. In that view of the matter, the questions of law and facts raised by the appellants are left open.

                  Writ appeals are closed, recording the above.”

(underline supplied)

                  38.3.   On 26.05.2023, when the learned Senior Counsel appearing for KSRTC and the learned Special Government Pleader submitted before the Division Bench that they are not intending to press the aforesaid writ appeals filed by KSRTC and the Regional Transport Authority, since the Government, vide G.O.(P)No. 13/2023/Trans. dated 03.05.2023, approved the proposal regarding the modified scheme that the passenger road transport service as per the particulars in the schedule to the said notification should be run and operated exclusively by the State Transport Undertaking.

39. The aforesaid notification dated 03.05.2023 was under challenge in W.P.(C)No.17469 of 2023 and connected matters. In the judgment dated 06.11.2024, the learned Single Judge found that, as evident from the final notification dated 03.05.2023 [Ext.P14], no reasons, even in brief, are coming forth for rejecting the objections filed by the writ petitioners to the proposed scheme in the draft notification dated 14.09.2020 [Ext.P9], except for saying that the objections were considered, and objectors were heard as mentioned in the final notification. For the reasons stated in the said judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions by setting aside the said notification dated 03.05.2023.

40. In Rajesh K. [2025 (3) KHC SN 10], the Division Bench held that, in view of the mandatory requirements of sub- section (2) of Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with in concluding that the notification dated 14.09.2020 [Ext.P9] does not satisfy the statutory requirements and as such the final notification dated 03.05.2023 [Ext.P14] cannot be said to be in accordance with law. Paragraph 75 of the said decision reads thus;

                  “75. A decision taken by the State Government, in the exercise of its powers under Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with the relevant provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, modifying an approved scheme, can be challenged by an affected private operator, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the absence of any statutory remedy. The absence of reasons will make nugatory and ineffective the exercise of the power of judicial review by this Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. During the course of arguments, it is not in dispute that the Government files relating to Ext.P14 notification do not disclose any reason whatsoever for disposing or rejecting the objections in the representations made by the private operators and others, made pursuant to Ext.P9 notification dated 14.09.2020. There is nothing on record to suggest that due consideration was given to such objections. It is well settled that the hearing required to be given is not an empty formality. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 06.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.17469 of 2023 and connected matters.”

41. As already noticed hereinbefore, in Rajesh K. [2025 (3)      KHC SN 10], the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for KSRTC and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the State and its officials on the locus standi of the private operators to challenge the final scheme published vide G.O.(P)No.13/2023/Trans. dated 03.05.2023, on the ground that their right to operate on long-distance routes has already been extinguished by the operation of law as per the Super Class Scheme published vide G.O.(P)No.73/2013/Tran. dated 16.07.2013 [Ext.R3(a) in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024] and the Kerala Motor Vehicles (1st Amendment) Rules, 2017, published vide G.O.(P)No.6/2017/Trans. dated 15.03.2017, was left open, since the Division Bench noticed that a reading of the impugned judgment dated 06.11.2024 would not show that such a contention was ever raised during the course of arguments, before the learned Single Judge.

42. Clauses (1) to (3) of Ext.R3(a) Super Class Scheme make it explicitly clear that the area in relation to which the Scheme is proposed is all over the State of Kerala; the class of service is Fast Passenger services, Super-Fast services, Super Express services, Super Deluxe services and Luxury services; and the services are to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking to the exclusion of other persons. The permits issued in the private sector on or before the date of the notification shall be allowed to continue till the dates of expiry of the respective permits. Thereafter, no permits shall be renewed, and no permit, regular or temporary, shall be issued afresh. As per the proviso to Clause (3), the exclusion shall be partial till the existing Private Services operating routes are replaced as provided. As per Clause (18), the right to operate any class of service other than ordinary service in the State of Kerala and to increase the trips shall be reserved exclusively with State Transport Undertakings.

43. In Kerala State Limited Stop Stage Carriages Operators Association [2014 (2) KLT 135], on the challenge made against Ext.R3(a) Super Class Scheme, the learned Single Judge held that, Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not impose any restriction on the Government in undertaking to operate on all routes in the State, to operate such number of services or trips as per traffic demand. If the Government decides to exclude private operators from certain routes or all the routes in the State, insofar as the power is available with the State Government under Chapter VI, and as stated above, Ext.R3(a) Super Class Scheme cannot be brushed aside. The scheme thus framed cannot be said to be inconsistent with any other provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, especially in view of Section 98 of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge concluded that the petitioners have not succeeded in challenging the validity of Ext.R3(a) Super Class Scheme.

44. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was under challenge in W.A.No.667 of 2014 and connected matters. In Mohankumar R. [2016 (2) KLT 963], on the sustainability of Ext.R3(a) Super Class Scheme, the Division Bench held that, once the power to make a scheme is demonstrated to be available in terms of the constitutional scheme of the relevant Statute, it would be impermissible for the writ court, or any other judicial authority for that matter, to visit any scheme formulated and issued by the competent authority in terms of the statutory provisions which are, by themselves, sustainable on the face of the Constitution. Therefore, the horizons of judicial review in such matters cannot be stretched to encompass any view that would fall beyond the purview of judicial intervention. The Division Bench rejected the plea against the finding of the learned Single Judge as to the validity of Ext.R3(a) Super Class Scheme and the challenge levelled against that scheme.

45. In Mohankumar R. [2016 (2) KLT 963], on the effect and practical impact of Ext.R3(a) Super Class Scheme, and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Rules, and the factual scenario available in terms of the interlocutory orders, the Division Bench held that, if KSRTC does not apply for grant of permit through any route which is a notified route or covered by a scheme, temporary permits can be granted to the private operators based on temporary need, and, if there are routes for which permits have been granted to KSRTC in relation to notified routes or notified areas, and if the KSRTC is not utilising the permits by operating the services, it will be open to the Regional Transport Authority to act on any application for the grant of temporary permits to the private operators over such routes. The Division Bench ordered that the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall act in conformity with the declaration made in paragraph 15 of the decision.

46. In paragraph 15 of the decision in Mohankumar R. [2016 (2) KLT 963], the Division Bench noticed that the provisions contained in Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which specifically restricts the grant of permits in respect of a notified area or notified route fell for pointed consideration of the Apex Court in Punjab Roadways v. Punja Sahib Bus and Transport Co. [(2010) 5 SCC 235]. The Apex Court noticed that through the proviso to Section 104, an exception has been carved out to the effect that where no application for permit has been made by the State Transport Undertaking in respect of any notified area or notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, may grant temporary permits to any person in respect of any such notified area or notified route subject to the condition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of permit to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of that area or route. The same is the situation in respect of a case where a State Transport Undertaking, in spite of the grant of a permit, does not operate the service or surrenders the permit granted or is not utilising the permit. In such a situation, it should be deemed that no application for a permit has been made by the State Transport Undertaking, and it is open to the Regional Transport Authority to grant a temporary permit, if there is a temporary need. The Apex Court held that, by granting regular permits to private operators, the        Regional Transport Authoritywill      be upsetting the ratio fixed under the scheme, which is legally impermissible.

47. In Mohankumar R. [2016 (2) KLT 963], the Division Bench noticed that, the net effect of the principles stated in Punjab Roadways [(2010) 5 SCC 235] is that, even if a State Transport Undertaking has been granted a permit and if it is not utilising that permit, it would be open to the Regional Transport Authority to grant a temporary permit, if there is a temporary need. The application by a State Transport Undertaking for a permit, in respect of a scheme, is necessarily a clear indicator as to the temporary need as well. Therefore, when the State Transport Undertaking has been granted a permit and is not utilising the permit, it would be open to the Regional Transport Authority to act on any application for the grant of a temporary permit to a private operator.

48. In Luka Devassia v. Regional Transport [2015 (3) KLJ 76], on the challenge made against Clause (4) of the scheme notified vide G.O.(P)No.42/2009/Tran. dated 14.07.2009 [Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017 - Saju Varkey - 2018 (4) KHC 617] in relation to 31 routes, a Division Bench of this Court held that the said clause excludes all services other than that of the State Transport Undertaking. However, it is stated that permits issued on or before 09.05.2006 in the private sector will be allowed to continue till the date of expiry of the respective permits. It is further stated that, thereafter, regular permits will be granted to them. Further, Clause (4) indicates that when the State Transport Undertaking applies for introducing new services in such routes, the corresponding number of existing private stage carriage permits in the said route, whose permits expire first after filing of the application by the State Transport Undertaking, shall not be renewed. In respect of permits issued after 09.05.2006, temporary permits alone will be issued until the State Transport Undertaking replaces with new services. The decision as to whether the State Transport Undertaking shall apply for permits to replace the existing stage carriage shall be taken by its Chief Executive. In other words, as far as the existing permit holders who had obtained permits prior to 09.05.2006 are concerned, their permits will be renewed, and they will be permitted to continue till the expiry of their permits, and thereafter regular permits will be granted to them on condition that they will be replaced when the State Transport Undertaking introduces new services in any of those routes. But, as far as permits issued after 09.05.2006 are concerned, only temporary permits will be issued, which will be issued only till the State Transport Undertaking replaces with new services. The Division Bench found that, by this

provision, no substantial damage has been caused to the private operators. Therefore, the private operators having regular permits as on 09.05.2006 are concerned, their regular permits were entitled to be renewed subject to the condition that, when the State Transport Undertaking starts operation on the same route, their permits will not be renewed. Therefore, the existing operators as on 09.05.2006 are classified differently, and their rights are protected to a certain extent. Those permit holders who had obtained a regular permit after 09.05.2006, restrictions have been imposed, under which they are entitled to get only temporary permits until the State Transport Undertaking starts operation on the same route. Therefore, the Division Bench found that Clause (4) of the scheme has not created a situation by which the existing operators' rights have been totally taken away. For that reason itself, the decision taken by the Government under the scheme cannot be said to be arbitrary.

49. In paragraph 15 of the decision in Mohankumar R. [2016 (2) KLT 963], the Division Bench agreed with the precedent laid down in Luka Devassia [2015 (3) KLJ 76] that the scheme notified vide G.O.(P)No.42/2009/Tran. dated 14.07.2009 [Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No. 11825 of 2017 - Saju Varkey -2018 (4) KHC 617] in relation to 31 routes has not created a situation by which the existing operators' rights have been totally taken away. The relevant portion of paragraph 15 reads thus;

                  “15. …….. In Luka Devassia v. Regional Transport [2015 (3) KLJ 76], a Division Bench of this Court held, among other things, that the impugned scheme has not created a situation by which the existing operators' rights have been totally taken away. We are in agreement with that precedent, and we follow it. ……….” (underline supplied)

50. In paragraph 15 of the decision in Mohankumar R. [2016 (2) KLT 963], the Division Bench held that if the State Transport Corporation does not apply for grant of permit through any route which is a notified route or covered by a scheme, temporary permits can be granted to the private operators based on temporary need, and, if there are routes for which permits have been granted to the State Transport Corporation in relation to notified routes or notified areas and if the State Transport Corporation is not utilising the permit by operating the services, it will be open to the Regional Transport Authority to act on any application for grant of temporary permit to the private operators over such routes. This conclusion is the true effect and resultant practical impact of the scheme in the backdrop of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Rules, in the light of the different precedents laid down by the Apex Court, in particular, Punjab Roadways [(2010) 5 SCC 235], and the decisions referred to therein.

51. In Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], on the question as to whether the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017 and connected matters had a pre-existing right, relatable to Ext.P5 scheme dated 14.07.2009, to operate ordinary and OLS services without any restriction as regards distance, it was contended before the Division Bench, by the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC, that the said right accrued to the private operators, not through Ext.P5 scheme, but only through Ext.P9 Government order dated 20.08.2015. However, the Division Bench was of the view that the rights/privileges granted to the petitioners through Ext.P9 Government order cannot be seen as divorced from Ext.P5 scheme. Ext.P10 draft scheme proposed to retain the rights obtained by the private operators through Ext.P9 Government order, while modifying Ext.P5 scheme, and while finalising the said draft scheme, the State Government could not have made the stipulation with regard to the maximum distance applicable to the permits saved by Ext.P5 scheme. Therefore, the Division Bench quashed Clause (4) of the scheme dated 23.03.2017 [Ext.P13 in W.P.(C) No.11825 of 2017]. Paragraph 16 of the said decision reads thus;

                  “16. Thus viewed, the conclusion is inescapable that, Ext.P10 draft scheme proposed to retain the rights obtained by the private operators through Ext.P9 Government order, while modifying Ext.P5 scheme, and while finalising the said draft scheme, the State Government could not have made the stipulation with regard to the maximum distance applicable to the permits saved by Ext.P5 scheme. We, therefore, find in favour of the petitioners on the said issue and quash Clause (4) of Ext.P13 scheme that makes the maximum distance in Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules applicable to the ‘saved permits’.”

                  (underline supplied)

52. In Thomas George [2022:KER:1750], the learned Single Judge held that the petitioners therein are operating not on the strength of G.O.(P)No.45/2015/Trans. dated 20.08.2015, but on the specific, indubitable and express declarations of the Division Bench in paragraph 16 of Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617]. Therefore, the act of the Government in withdrawing the Government order dated 20.08.2015, by issuing G.O.(Ms.)No. 22/2020/Trans. dated 01.07.2020, would really have no effect whatsoever. On account of the interim order dated 29.10.2021, which had been issued taking note of the observations of the learned Division Bench in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], the petitioners will certainly be entitled to continue to operate, at least until such time the Government brings out a modified or a new scheme as per the Motor Vehicles Act. W.A.No.772 of 2022 and connected matters filed against the judgment dated 12.01.2022 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.11074 of 2020 and connected matters and W.A.No.931 of 2020 filed by the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, and another against the judgment dated 12.02.2020 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.3952 of 2020 were closed by the judgment dated 26.05.2023; however, the question of law and facts raised by the appellants were left open.

53. As held by the Division Bench in Luka Devassia [2015 (3) KLJ 76], Clause (4) of the scheme notified vide G.O.(P)No.42/2009/Tran. dated 14.07.2009 [Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No. 11825 of 2017] in relation to 31 routes, which excludes all services other than that of the State Transport Undertaking, has not created a situation by which the existing operators' rights have been totally taken away. In the case of private operators having regular permits as on 09.05.2006, their regular permits were entitled to be renewed subject to the condition that, when the State Transport Undertaking starts operation on the same route, their  permits will not be renewed. Therefore, the existing operators as on 09.05.2006 are classified differently, and their rights are protected to a certain extent.

54. In paragraph 15 of the decision in Mohankumar R. [2016 (2) KLT 963], on the effect and practical impact of Ext.R3(a) Super Class Scheme notified vide notification dated 16.07.2013, and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Rules, and the factual scenario available in terms of the interlocutory orders, the Division Bench held that, if KSRTC does not apply for grant of permit through any route which is a notified route or covered by a scheme, temporary permits can be granted to the private operators based on temporary need, and, if there are routes for which permits have been granted to KSRTC in relation to notified routes or notified areas, and if the KSRTC is not utilising the permits by operating the services, it will be open to the Regional Transport Authority to act on any application for the grant of temporary permits to the private operators over such routes. In paragraph 15, the Division Bench agreed with the precedent laid down in Luka Devassia [2015 (3) KLJ 76] that Ext.P5 scheme notified vide G.O.(P)No.42/2009/Tran. dated 14.07.2009 in relation to 31 routes has not created a situation by which the existing operators' rights have been totally taken away. The Division Bench ordered that the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall act in conformity with the declaration made in paragraph 15 of the decision.

55. When the aforesaid right of the holders of ‘saved permits’ was attempted to be taken away, by the stipulation in Clause (4) of the modified scheme notified vide G.O.(P)No. 8/2017/Tran. dated 23.03.2017 [Ext.P13 in W.P.(C) No.11825 of 2017], with regard to the maximum distance applicable to the permits saved by Ext.P5 scheme, the Division Bench in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617] quashed the said clause, holding that when the draft scheme notified vide notification No.12878/ B1/2015/Tran. dated 08.02.2016 [Ext.P10 in W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017] proposed to retain the rights obtained by the private operators through the Government order dated 20.08.2015 [Ext.P9 in W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017], while modifying the scheme notified vide G.O.(P)No.42/2009/Tran. dated 14.07.2009 [Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017], and while finalising Ext.P10 draft scheme, the State Government could not have made the stipulation with regard to the maximum distance applicable to the permits saved by Ext.P5 scheme. The Division Bench viewed that the rights/privileges granted to the holders of ‘saved permits’ through Ext.P9 Government order dated 20.08.2015 cannot be seen as divorced from Ext.P5 scheme.

56. Clause (4) of the scheme notified vide G.O.(P)No. 42/2009/Tran. dated 14.07.2009 [Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No.11825 of 2017], inter alia, provided that the services to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking along the notified routes were to the exclusion of private stage carriages operating in the said routes. Clause (4) of Ext.P5 scheme reads thus;

                 

                 

57. In Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Baby P.P. [(2018) 7 SCC 501], a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court found that, from Clause (4) of the scheme notified vide G.O.(P)No.42/2009/Tran. dated 14.07.2009 [Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No. 11825 of 2017], it is clear that the permits which were already issued to the private sector prior to 09.05.2006 will be allowed to continue until the date of expiry of the respective permits. Thereafter, regular permits will be granted to them. However, as and when the State Transport Undertaking applies for introducing a new service on the route, the corresponding number of existing private stage carriage permits in the said route, whose permits expire first after the filing of the application by the State Transport Undertaking, shall not be renewed. Meaning thereby, the services to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking along the notified route were to the exclusion of private stage carriages if the State Transport Undertaking operates on the same route.

                  57.1.   In Baby P.P. [(2018) 7 SCC 501], the Apex Court found that, a plain reading of Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, makes it amply clear that where a scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of Section 100 of the Act in respect of any notified area or notified route, grant of any permit on       the     notified route or areais impermissible, except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. However, the proviso clarifies that wherever the State Transport Undertaking has not sought any permit in respect of any notified route or notified area in pursuance to the scheme, the Regional Transport Authority or State Transport Authority, as the case may be, may grant a temporary permit to any private stage carriage operator in respect of such notified area or notified route, on the condition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of that area or route. The scheme formulated and published by the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 100 of the Act holds the fort in all matters involving permits. As observed in various decisions, including Gajraj Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal [(1997) 1 SCC 650], the scheme is a law by itself.

58. The rights/privileges granted to the holders of ‘saved permits’, referred to by the Division Bench in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], should be        something fundamentally and inseparably connected to Ext.P5 scheme. As held by the Division Bench in Luka Devassia [2015 (3) KLJ 76], in the case of private operators having regular permits as on 09.05.2006, their regular permits were entitled to be renewed subject to the condition that, when the State Transport Undertaking starts operation on the same route, their permits will not be renewed. The said legal position is now well settled by the decision of the Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Baby P.P. [(2018) 7 SCC 501]. In Mohankumar R. [2016 (2) KLT 963], on the effect and practical impact of Ext.R3(a) Super Class Scheme notified vide notification dated 16.07.2013, the Division Bench held that, if KSRTC does not apply for grant of permit through any route which is a notified route or covered by a scheme, temporary permits can be granted to the private operators based on temporary need, and, if there are routes for which permits have been granted to KSRTC in relation to notified routes or notified areas, and if the KSRTC is not utilising the permits by operating the services, it will be open to the Regional Transport Authority to act on any application for the grant of temporary permits to the private operators over such routes. In Mohankumar R. [2016 (2) KLT 963], the Division Bench agreed with the precedent laid down in Luka Devassia [2015 (3) KLJ 76] that Ext.P5 scheme in relation to 31 routes has not created a situation by which the existing operators' rights have been totally taken away, and directed the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, to act in conformity with the declaration made in paragraph 15 of the said decision.

59. As already noticed hereinbefore, the specific stand taken by KSRTC in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit dated 15.11.2024 filed in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024 is that there were altogether 241 Super-Fast permits in the private sector. All these permits in the private sector        are replaced by KSRTC. In G.O.(Ms.)No.22/2020/Trans. dated 01.07.2020, whereby G.O.(P) No.45/2015/Trans. dated 20.08.2015 was withdrawn, which was under challenge in W.P.(C)No.11074 of 2020 and connected matters, it is stated that KSRTC had started about 240 number of services in the place of private operators which was being operated as Super Class service. The relevant portion of the first paragraph of the Government order dated 01.07.2020, which we have extracted hereinbefore at paragraph 35, reads thus;

                  “The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation had started about 240 number of services in the place of private operators which was being operated as Super Class Service, consequent of the takeover of these permits so many private stage carriage permits were rejected by the Transport Authorities on the basis of Cause (4) of the SRO No.608/2009 and Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.”          (underline supplied)

60. As held by the Apex Court in Baby P.P. [(2018) 7 SCC 501], the services to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking along the notified route were to the exclusion of private stage carriages if the State Transport Undertaking operates on the same route. The permits, which were issued to the private sector prior to 09.05.2006, will be allowed to continue until the date of expiry of the respective permits. Thereafter, regular permits will be granted to them. However, as and when the State Transport Undertaking applies for introducing a new service on the route, the corresponding number of existing private stage carriage permits in the said route, whose permits expire first after the filing of the application by the State Transport Undertaking, shall not be renewed.

61. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Anwar Ahmed [(1997) 3 SCC 191], the Apex Court held that, once the scheme has been approved and notified under sub- section (3) of Section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the right to ply stage carriages by private operators on the notified area, routes or portions thereof is totally frozen. Therefore, they have no right to claim any grant of stage carriage, temporary or contract carriage permits thereunder on the said notified area, routes or portions thereof except to the extent saved by the scheme with restrictions imposed thereunder. Where the scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of Section 100, in respect of any notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme.

62. In view of the law laid down in Luka Devassia [2015 (3) KLJ 76], Mohankumar R. [2016 (2) KLT 963] and Baby P.P. [(2018) 7 SCC 501], the rights/privileges granted to the holders of ‘saved permits’, referred to by the Division Bench in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], and taken note of by the learned Single Judge in Thomas George [2022:KER:1750], will not entitle the holders of such permits to make applications for temporary permits or regular permits over the routes in relation to notified routes or notified areas in which permits have been granted to the State Transport Undertaking, and if the State Transport Undertaking is utilising the permits by operating the services. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Anwar Ahmed [(1997) 3 SCC 191], the holders of such permits have no right to claim grant of any temporary permits or regular permits over the routes in relation to notified routes or notified areas except to the extent saved by the scheme with restrictions imposed thereunder. In that view of the matter, the conclusion is irresistible that the entitlement of the holders of ‘saved permits’, which were issued to the private sector prior to 09.05.2006, who were allowed to continue until the date of expiry of the respective permits, for renewal of their respective permits, is only until the State Transport Undertaking, i.e., KSRTC, applies for introducing a new service on the route, in which event the corresponding number of existing private stage carriage permits in the said route, which expire first after the filing of the application by KSRTC, shall not be renewed. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617], the maximum distance criterion of 140 kilometers in clause (oa) of Rule 2 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, cannot be made applicable in the case of a ‘saved permit’, while considering its renewal, subject to the above restriction imposed under the scheme.

63. In the above circumstances, these writ appeals are disposed of by modifying the impugned judgment dated 01.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.39608 of 2024 and connected matters by holding that the entitlement of the holders of ‘saved permits’, which were issued to the private sector prior to 09.05.2006, who were allowed to continue until the date of expiry of the respective permits, for renewal of their respective permits, is only until KSRTC applies for introducing a new service on the route, in which event the corresponding number of existing private stage carriage permits in the said route, which expire first after the filing of the application by KSRTC, shall not be renewed. The maximum distance criterion of 140 kilometers in clause (oa) of Rule 2 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules cannot be made applicable in the case of a ‘saved permit’, while considering its renewal, subject to the above restriction imposed under the scheme, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KHC 617].

                  The concerned Regional Transport Authorities are directed to consider the respective applications made by the writ petitioners, who are holders of ‘saved permits’, strictly in terms of the law laid down as above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording them an opportunity of being heard.