Summary
The Supreme Court held that Section 104’s temporary-permit proviso cannot override an approved transport scheme. A private operator could not combine a non-notified route with a 13-km stretch already served by KSRTC to evade the scheme’s limited intersection allowance. For the proposed 28-km route, the permitted distance was only 1.4 km and only for intersection. The Court set aside the tribunal remand, the High Court judgment and the consequential temporary permit.
Issues
- Whether the temporary-permit proviso authorised operation beyond an approved scheme’s limits on a notified route already served by the State undertaking.
- Whether combining notified and non-notified stretches or alleging public inconvenience justified the permit.
Provisions considered
- Section 104, including proviso, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988The proviso must be read with the main provision and approved scheme. Its temporary accommodation does not authorise bypassing scheme restrictions on a route already operated by the State undertaking. (¶¶ 14, 15, 17, 18, 32)
- Clauses 4, 5(c) and 6, Kerala transport scheme notified by G.O.(P) No.42/2009/Tran. dated 14 July 2009The scheme’s saved services and limited intersection allowance governed private operation. The claimed 13-km overlap exceeded the lesser of 5 km or 5% of the applicant’s route and was not an intersection. (¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 20, 28, 31, 37)
Held
- An approved scheme controls grant of permits, including temporary permits. Section 104’s proviso is not an independent power to disregard the scheme. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Private operators cannot create a route by fusing non-notified and notified stretches to circumvent the scheme. The proposed 13-km overlap on a 28-km route far exceeded the applicable 1.4-km limit. (¶¶ 20, 25, 26, 27)
- The permitted intersection means cutting across the notified route for onward travel on a non-notified route, within scheme limits. Traversing the same line for 13 km could not be treated as intersection. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30, 31)
- KSRTC was already operating on the notified stretch. Alleged insufficiency of trips did not justify resort to the proviso; public inconvenience must be addressed through the lawful scheme framework. The ratio-sharing scheme considered in Punjab Roadways was distinguishable. (¶¶ 19, 21, 22, 24, 32, 34, 35)
- The consequential permit could not survive merely because it was not separately challenged: it followed the legally defective remand, and the operator’s entitlement had been fully heard. (¶ 36)
Result
Appeals allowed. STAT remand, consequential RTA temporary permit dated 23 February 2017 and High Court judgment set aside. KSRTC’s original petition allowed; the connected petitions governed by the same ruling.