Kerala High Court
The Managing Director vs Sasi A.T on 17 March, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
1
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1821 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.18290 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/6TH RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY ADVS.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5:
1 RAJESH K. JACOB,AGED 49 YEARS
S/O K.C. CHACKO, KAYYUNNAPPARA HOUSE, ANICKAD,
EAST P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686503
2 K.T. THOMAS,AGED 50 YEARS
S/O THOMAS, KAVUMKAL HOUSE, ELAMPILLY P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686503
3 N.M. BIJU,AGED 48 YEARS,S/O MATHAI,
NELLICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KELAKOM P.O., KANNUR, PIN
2
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
- 670674
4 VINOD THOMAS, AGED 47 YEARS
S/O THOMAS, AIKARYIL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM BAZAR P.O,
VELLILAPPALLY, PALA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686576
5 JOSHY THOMAS, AGED 51 YEARS
S/O THOMAS, NADUTHUNDATHIL HOUSE, KONGANDOOR P.O,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686564
6 THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
7 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
8 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN -
686002
9 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
COLLECTORATE P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670002
10 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KANNUR, COLLECTORATE P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670002
*ADDL.R11 HONEY BALACHANDRAN, GENERAL SECRETARY, KERALA
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
(CITU), RESIDING AT SREE RAGOM, PATHIRICKAL P.O,
PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT IS IMPLEADED VIDE
ORDER DT.27.02.2025 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2024 IN W.A.
3
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
*ADDL.R12 ALIYAR, M.I., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.M.A.IBRAHIM,
DRIVER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
PERUMBAVOOR DEPOT- 683 542, (RESIDING AT
MURIYANKARA HOUSE, WEST VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR-683
536), [STATE SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEMOCRATIC
FEDERATION (INTUC)].
*ADDL.R13 ANIL KUMAR. T.V. ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED )
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, DRIVER, KERALA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ALUVA DEPOT -683101,
(RESIDING AT PADINJARAKKARAKUDI, SOUTH
VAZHAKULAM, ALUVA-683105) DISTRICT SECRETARY
(ERNAKULAM), TRANSPORT DEMOCRATIC FEDERATION
(INTUC)]
ADDL.R12 & R13 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
27.02.2025 IN I.A.NO.3 OF 2024 IN W.A.
BY ADVS. K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT)
T.P.PRADEEP
A.JOSEPH GEORGE (AZHIKKAKATH)
P.K.SATHEES KUMAR
R.K.PRASANTH
MINIKUMARY M.V.
JIJO JOSEPH
SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
SR.ADV.SRI.P.DEEPAK
ADV.SRI.RILGIN V. GEORGE
SRI.K.T.RAVEENDRAN
SMT.NAZRIN BANU
SMT.AKSHARA K.P.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.160/2025, 1884/2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 160 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.24655 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 1-3 I WPC:
1 THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695001
2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
3 THE SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM,
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 4TH RESPONDENT IN WPC:
1 JAYMON JOSEPH, AGED 54 YEARS
S/O JOSEPH, KOOTTUNALAKUNNEL, KOTHAMALLOOR,
MANJOOR P.O KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686603
5
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
2 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT
BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695023
R BY ADV P C CHACKO
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
6
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1884 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.17469 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/13TH RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR., PIN - 695014
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 12:
1 BABY JOSEPH, AGED 62 YEARS
S/O JOSEPH, VARALIKARA HOUSE, KOODAPPULAM P.O,
RAMAPURAM, PALA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686576
2 CHELSIA THERESA GEORGE, AGED 45 YEARS
D/O. LATE GEORGE CHERIYAN, PANACHIKALAYIL HOUSE,
VETTIMUGAL.P.O., ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM,
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.
ELVIN SHAJI, MONUVILLA, VADAVATHOOR.P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686010
7
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 SHAJI KURUVILA, AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. KURUVILA, MONUVILA, VADAVATHUR PO, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686010
4 JENSON ALEX, AGED 33 YEARS
S/O, ALEX THOMAS, MYALIL HOUSE, KALLARA
SOUTH.P.O., KALLARA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM,
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI.
ALEX THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, MYALIL HOUSE, KALLARA
SOUTH.P.O., KALLARA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686611
5 ABRAHAM.T.J., AGED 71 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH, THANNIYAPLACAL HOUSE, ANICKADU.P.O.,
PALLIKKATHODU, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 689503
6 JUSTIN, AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. GEORGE, KATTOM PARAMBIL, KONGNDOOR.P.O.,
AYARKUNNAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686122
7 V.K.SURESH KUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, VATTAPPAAMBIL HOUSE,
DESOM.P.O., ALUVA. ERNKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
683516
8 M.N.VINITHA, AGED 38 YEARS
W/O. MOHANAN, NIVEDYAM, CHOVVA.P.O., KANNUR, PIN
- 670006
9 MOHAN KUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. RAMASWAMY, 23/10, VINAYAKA HOUSE, SKV
COLLEGE ROAD, KANATTUMKARA.P.O., THRISSUR, PIN -
680011
10 JOHNSON, AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. ANTONY, CHELIPARAMBIL, NANDIPULAM,
8
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680563
11 M.ABDULLAKUTTY, AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. KUNHIMOIDU, MANGADAN HOUSE, CHERUSHOLA,
PLATHARA, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676503
12 MOOSA.P..K., AGED 60 YEARS
S/O KOMU HAJI, PARUTHIKUNNAN HOUSE,
KARIMOOCHIKKAL, KUTTIPALA.P.O, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676501
13 C.RANJITH, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O RAGHAVAN, MADHAVI
NIVAS, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR, PIN - 670008
14 SREERAJ.C.H, AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANAN, SUGANDHI NILAYAM, CHIRAKKAL,
KANNUR, PIN - 670008
15 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 609001
16 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, MOTOR VEHICLE
DEPARTMENT, TRANSPORT TOWER, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014., PIN - 695014
17 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN -
670002
18 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
CIVIL STATION, KANNUR, PIN - 670002
19 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL
9
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
20 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
21 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN -
686001
22 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
23 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN -
676001
24 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676001
25 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
VATAKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 673
101, PIN - 673101
26 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
CIVIL STATION, VATAKARA, PIN - 673101
R BY SRI.P. SANTHOSHKUMAR, SPL.GOVT.PLEADER
SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
10
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1886 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.17469 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 12 IN WPC:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 609001
2 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, TRANSPORT TOWER,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN -
670002
4 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
CIVIL STATION, KANNUR, PIN - 670002
5 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
11
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL
STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
6 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
7 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN -
686001
8 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
9 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN -
676001
10 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676001
11 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
VATAKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 673
101,
12 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
CIVIL STATION, VATAKARA, PIN - 673101
BY SRI.P. SANTHOSHKUMAR SPL.GOVT.PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENT NO.13 IN WPC:
1 BABY JOSEPH, AGED 62 YEARS
S/O JOSEPH, VARALIKARA HOUSE, KOODAPPULAM P.O,
RAMAPURAM, PALA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686576
12
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
2 CHELSIA THERESA GEORGE, AGED 45 YEARS
D/O. LATE GEORGE CHERIYAN, PANACHIKALAYIL HOUSE,
VETTIMUGAL.P.O., ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM,
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.
ELVIN SHAJI, MONUVILLA, VADAVATHOOR.P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686010
3 SHAJI KURUVILA, AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. KURUVILA, MONUVILA, VADAVATHUR PO, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686010
4 JENSON ALEX, AGED 33 YEARS
S/O, ALEX THOMAS, MYALIL HOUSE, KALLARA
SOUTH.P.O., KALLARA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM,
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI.
ALEX THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, MYALIL HOUSE, KALLARA
SOUTH.P.O., KALLARA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686611
5 ABRAHAM.T.J., AGED 71 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH, THANNIYAPLACAL HOUSE, ANICKADU.P.O.,
PALLIKKATHODU, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 689503
6 JUSTIN, AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. GEORGE, KATTOM PARAMBIL, KONGNDOOR.P.O.,
AYARKUNNAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686122
7 V.K SURESHKUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS
S/O KRISHNAN NAIR, VATTAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, DESOM P
O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683516
8 M.N VINITHA, AGED 38 YEARS
W/O MOHANAN, NIVEDYAM, CHOVVA P O, KANNUR, PIN -
670006
13
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
9 MOHAN KUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. RAMASWAMY, 23/10, VINAYAKA HOUSE, SKV
COLLEGE ROAD, KANATTUMKARA.P.O., THRISSUR, PIN -
680011
10 JOHNSON, AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. ANTONY, CHELIPARAMBIL, NANDIPULAM,
IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680563
11 M.ABDULLAKUTTY, AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. KUNHIMOIDU, MANGADAN HOUSE, CHERUSHOLA,
PLATHARA, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676503
12 MOOSA.P..K. AGED 60 YEARS, S/O KOMU HAJI,
PARUTHIKUNNAN HOUSE, KARIMOOCHIKKAL,
KUTTIPALA.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676501
13 C.RANJITH, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O RAGHAVAN, MADHAVI
NIVAS, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR, PIN - 670008
14 SREERAJ.C.H, AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANAN, SUGANDHI NILAYAM, CHIRAKKAL,
KANNUR, PIN - 670008
15 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR., PIN - 695014
R BY O.D.SIVADAS
P.C.CHACKO, SC, KSRTC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
14
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1980 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.18290 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/LEAVE APPLICANTS:
1 FORUM FOR JUSTICE (F.F.J) K.S.R.T.C EMPLOYEES AND
FAMILY WELFARE SOCIETY,
TRIVANDRUM/TC NO.252/219, MITHRA NAGAR, POONTHURA
P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP BY ITS SECRETARY
P.SHAJAN, S/O LATE K.C.KUNHUNNI , PARAKKUNNATH
HOUSE, KAVALAPPARA P.O, SHORANUR, PALAKKAD, PIN -
679523
2 INDEPENDENT TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES FEDERATION,
REGISTRATION NO-TU19455, FIRST FLOOR, ROOM NO-5,
CO-OPERATION BUILDING, CHEROOTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY SREESHAD.K.P,, S/O LATE
SREEDHARAN NAIR KP, SRUTHI HOUSE, KUNNATHARA
POST, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673323
3 R.S.RIJU, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O S.RAMDAS, DAS -
R.BHAVAN,VALIAKADA, CHIRAYANKEEZHU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695304
15
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
BY ADVS.JOHNSON MANAYANI
JEEVAN MATHEW MANAYANI
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
1 RAJESH.K.JACOB, AGED 49 YEARS
S/O K.C.CHACKO,KAYYUNNAPPARA HOUSE,ANICKD EAST
P.O,KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686503
2 K.T.THOMAS, AGED 50 YEARS
S/O THOMAS,CAVUMKAL HOUSE, ELAMPILLY
P.O,KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686503
3 N.M.BAIJU, AGED 48 YEARS
S/O MATHAI, NELLICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KELAKOM P.O,
KANNUR, PIN - 670674
4 VINOD THOMAS, AGED 47 YEARS
S/O THOMAS, AIKARYIL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM BAZAR P.O,
VELLILAPPALLY PALAI, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686576
5 JOSHY THOMAS, AGED 51 YEARS
S/O THOMAS, NADUTHUNDATHIL HOUSE, KONGANDOOR,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686564
6 THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THRIUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
7 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, REP BY
ITS SECRETARY, COLLECTRATE P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN -
686002
8 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KOTTAYAM, COLLECTRATE P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
16
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
9 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KANNUR, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, COLLECTRATE P.O,
KANNUR, PIN - 670002
10 THE SECRETARY
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR,
COLLECTRATE P.O, KANNUR, PIN - 670002
11 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695004
BY ADV P C CHACKO
SRI.P. SANTHOSHKUMAR, SPL.GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
17
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1908 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.23837 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695023
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT 1, 3 & 4:
1 VINEEDHARAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O RAMUTTI, 21/1366,
PANNAKKAL HOUSE, PAYYANAKKAL, KOZHIKODE, PIN -
673002
2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
18
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM, PIN -
676505
4 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM, PIN -
676505
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
19
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1909 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.18701 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR., PIN - 695014
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:
1 SUDHEER
S/O. KAPPIL MUHAMED, KAPPIL HOUSE, PULVETTA.P.O,
KARUVARAKUNDU, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.,
PIN - 676523
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
20
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, TRANSPORT TOWER,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695014
4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY., PIN -
676501
5 THE SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION,
MALAPPURAM., PIN - 676001
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
21
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1911 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.21853 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIEF
OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695034
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITOINER/RESPONDENTS 1, 3 AND 4:
1 ALL KERALA BUS OPERATORS ORGANISATION,
REG.NO.642/99, BUS BHAVAN, NEAR STADIUM BUS
STAND, COIMBATORE ROAD, PALAKKAD-678001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
T.GOPINATHAN, SON OF LATE P.NARAYANA MENON, AGED
60, RESIDING AT POURNAMI, S.V.ROAD, CHITTUR,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
22
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN -
678001
4 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN -
678001
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
23
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1913 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.20747 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/10TH RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT
BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 9:
1 A.M. NOUSHAD,
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMED, ATTUPARAMBATH HOUSE, NATTIKA P.O.,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680566
2 SHAHINA NOUSHAD,
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O NOUSHAD, ATTUPARAMBATH HOUSE, NATTIKA P.O.,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680566
24
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 SUNIL KUMAR,
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O VELAPPAN, CHAKKALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANAKODY,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680012
4 ABILASH,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O XAVIER, 216(A), ANIKKAL HOUSE, OLLUR P.O,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680306
5 MOHAMMED,
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O MAMMAD, EDATHANTHODI HOUSE, ATHANIKKAL,
POOKKOTTUR, VALLUVAMBRAM P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN -
673642
6 MAHAMMED NASEER,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O ABOOBCKER, CHARUPARABATH, KOOTTILANGADI PO,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676506
7 ABDULLA V.K,
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O VEERAN V.K, VALLIKKADAN HOUSE, PATHIRIYAL
P.O, THIRUVALI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676123
8 SADIQ,
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O KHADER, PANAKKADAN HOUSE, CHIRAPPADAM
THENKARA, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678582
9 MOHAMMED ALI,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMED, CHEMMALA KAPPUARAMBA, THAZHEKODE,
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679322
25
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
10 ABDUL MUNEER,
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O AHAMMADAJI, KUNNATHPARAMP HOUSE, ARIMBRA P.O,
MORAYUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673638
11 MOHAMMED THONDIYIL,
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O KUNHIMOIDEEN, PALLIYALI HOUSE, VALLUVAMBRAM
P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673642
12 ABDUL LATHEEF.P.,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O KADAR.P, PANTHAR HOUSE, THONNIKADAVU ROAD,
MAMPAD P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676542
13 THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
14 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN -
678001
15 SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRASNPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD,
KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN -
678001
16 REGIONAL TRASNPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL STATION RD,
UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
17 SECRETARY,
26
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, CIVIL
STATION RD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
18 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GROUND FLOOR CIVIL
STATION, WAYANAD RD, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN
- 673020
19 SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOZHIKODE, GROUND
FLOOR CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD RD, ERANHIPPALAM,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
20 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL
STATION, AYYANTHOLE PO, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
21 SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, CIVIL
STATION, AYYANTHOLE PO, THRISSUR ., PIN - 680003
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
27
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1915 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.22187 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIEF
OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695034
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT 1, 3 & 4:
1 SONY KURIAN,
AGED 60 YEARS
PULLAMKALAM HOUSE, MAMOODU P.O., MADAPALLY,
CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686536
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
28
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., IDUKKI, PIN - 686503
4 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., IDUKKI, PIN - 686503
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
29
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1916 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.18654 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695023
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 4:
1 JOHNY EDASSERY,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O VARGHESE, EDASSERY HOUSE, KOTTAMAM,
NEELESWARAM P.O, KALADY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683574
2 RINI BOBAN,
AGED 31 YEARS
W/O BOBAN, NADUVILAMAKKAL HOUSE, BISON VALLEY
30
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
P.O, IDUKKI, PIN - 685615
3 SUBIN JACOB,
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O JACOB, KUZHIKKATTU HOUSE, THADIYEMPADU,
IDUKKI, PIN - 686002
4 SHIHABUDHEEN,
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O AHAMMED, MANATH HOUSE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682030
5 THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
6 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICE, PAINAVU, IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
7 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI, REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICE, PAINAVU, IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
SRI.P.DEEPAK, SR.ADV.
SMT.NAZRIN BANU
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
31
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1918 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.40892 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 698014
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:
1 MOHAN KUMAR
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. RAMASWAMY, 23/10, VINAYAKA HOUSE, SKV
COLLEGE ROAD, KNATTUMKARA.P.O., THRISSUR,, PIN -
680011
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
32
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN 695 001, PIN - 695001
3 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, TRANS TOWER,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673104
5 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673104
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
ADV.SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
33
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1920 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.21199 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5:
1 JOJI EDATTEL,
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. SCARIA, EDATTEL HOUSE, KALLORKKAD P.O.,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN -
686668
2 MAHESH KUMAR,
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O SUKUMARAN NAIR, VARIYELIL HOUSE, IRINGOLE
34
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT KERALA, PIN
- 683545
3 SIJO GEORGE,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O N.O. GEORGE, NELLIKKATTIL HOUSE, RAMALLOOR
P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DIST, KERALA, PIN
- 686691
4 N.O. GEORGE,
AGED 75 YEARS
S/O OUSEPH, NELLIKKATTIL HOUSE, RAMALLOOR,
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM - KERALA, PIN - 686691
5 ELDHOSE YACOB,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O YACOB, KUNNAPPIL HOUSE, MANNAMKANDAM P.O.,
ADIMALI, IDUKKI- KERALA, PIN - 685561
6 JACOB M. MATHEW,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O MATHEW M. M., MYLUMKAL, PANIPRA P. O.
KOTHAMANGALAM, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN - 686691
7 THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
8 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PAINAVU, IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
9 THE SECRETARY,
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI,
PAINAVU, IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
35
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
10 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686002
11 THE SECRETARY,
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, PIN
- 686002
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
ADV.JOICE GEORGE
ADV. LIJI J.VADEKKEDAM
ADV.TOMI E. JACOB
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
36
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1921 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN
WP(C)NO.20710 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT
BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 2 & 4 TO 7:
1 JOY M.P.,
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. PAULOSE, MANGALATH PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE,
KOORACHUND P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673527
2 KHADEEJA,
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O. ALAVI, 4/682, ELANNTHI HOUSE, EDARIKKODE,
KOTTAKKAL, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN
- 676501
37
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 YUNUS SALEEM,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. ABOO, ARIKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VENGOOR P.O.,
PATTIKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679325
4 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTS, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
5 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, TRANSPORT TOWER,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
6 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL STATION,
MALAPPURAM P.O., PIN - 676505
7 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
8 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL STATION,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
9 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
PALAKKAD, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD P.O., PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678001
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
ADV.SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
38
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
39
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1922 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.6606 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695023
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 AND 4:
1 CHANDRAN P.R., AGED 55 YEARS
S/O CHINDANNAMBIAR, MOONSHA, KANHILERI P.O.,
MATTANUR, SIVAPURAM, KANNUR, PIN - 670702
2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 682031
40
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICE, KANNUR, PIN - 670002
4 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KANNUR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KANNUR, PIN -
670002
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
SR.ADV.SRI.P. DEEPAK
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
41
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1923 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.19823 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIEF
OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695034
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 4 :
1 KAMARUDHEEN C.H.,
AGED 47 YEARS
CHERUVATH HOUSE, KEEZHAPALLY P.O., ARALAM, KANNUR
-670704
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. -695001, PIN - 695001
42
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670001
4 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670001
R BY SRI.P. SANTHOSHKUMAR, SPL.GOVT.PLEADER
ADV.SRI.LAVARAJ M.G.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
43
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1924 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.18342 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN-695014
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:
1 M.D.LUKA,
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. DEVASSIA, RESIDING AT MATTAPALLIL HOUSE,
T.V.PURAM, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN -
686606
2 MINI LUKA,
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O. M.D.LUKA, RESIDING AT MATTAPALLIL HOUSE,
T.V.PURAM, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686607
44
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 C.J.JOSEPH, AGED 80 YEARS
S/O. OUSEPH, EDATHIL HOUSE, THALAYAZHAM.P.O.,
VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686607, PIN -
686607
4 ISSAC, AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. C.J.JOSEPH, CHERUMALA, EDATHIL HOUSE,
THALAYAZHAM.P.O., ULLALA, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN-686607
5 P.D.JOSEPH,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. DEVASYA, KALATHILPARAMBIL HOUSE,
UDAYANAURAM, VADAKKEMURI, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686143
6 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
7 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, TRANS TOWER,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695014
8 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL STATION,
KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001
9 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION,
KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001, PIN - 686001
R BY SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR, SPL.GOVT.PLEADER
ADV.SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
45
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
46
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1927 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.18105 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695023
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETIITONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 TO 6:
1 ABRAHAM MATHEW, AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. MATHEW THOMAS, NJONGINIYIL HOUSE,
ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686 562 (REPRESENTED BY
POWER OF ATTORNEY JERIN THOMAS, 34 YEARS, S/O
THOMAS MATHEW, NJONGINIYIL HOUSE, ATHIRAMPUZHA,
KOTTAYAM-686 562), PIN - 686562
2 JOBY JACOB, AGED 50 YEARS, NAMBUDATHU HOUSE,
MOONNILAVU, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686586
47
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 SHAIJU MATHEW,
AGED 50 YEARS
KALLIDANTHIYIL, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686 562
4 P.S. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O SANKARAN NAIR, PONGANAKUNNEL HOUSE,
PALLICKATHODU, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686503
5 THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
6 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
7 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
8 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 682030
9 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686002
R BY SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR, SPL.GOVT.PLEADER
SMT.NAZRIN BANU
SR.ADV.SRI.P.DEEPAK
RILGIN V. GEORGE
K.T.RAVEENRAN
48
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
ADKSHARA K.P
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
49
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1928 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.3195 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695014
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:
1 K.P. MOHANAN,
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O. GOVINDAN, THEKKENMARKANDI, HOUSE, P.O.
AZHIKODE, KANNUR, PIN - 670009
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
50
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, TRANS TOWER,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KASARAGOD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
KASARAGOD, PIN - 684201
5 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KASARAGOD, PIN - 684201
R BY SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR, SPL.GOVT.PLEADER
ADV.SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
51
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1929 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.21939 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIEF
OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695034
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 4:
1 K.V.RAJEESH.,
AGED 48 YEARS
KUNHIMVEETIL POOKKOM P.O., PANOOR, PUTHOOR
THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN - 670692
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
52
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670002
4 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670002
R BY SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR, SPL.GOVT.PLEADER
ADV.SMT.NAZRIN BANU
SR.ADV.SRI.P.DEEPAK
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
53
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1931 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.3681 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT :
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695014
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:
1 AYUB
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. KUNHABDULLA, RESIDING AT CHINGLEENTAVIDA,
VALAYAM, KALLACHI, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY THE
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. MUNEER, S/O.
MUHAMMAD KOYA, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANAM
VAYALIL HOUSE, NADUVANNUR.PO., KOZHIKODE, PIN -
673614
54
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
2 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, TRANS TOWER,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
VATAKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN - 673104
5 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673104
R BY SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR, SPL.GOVT.PLEADER
ADV.SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
55
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1932 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.6646 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O, THINRVANANTHAPURAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN -
695023
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:
1 YOUNUS ALI V.,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O YOUSAF HAJI, VATTATHODI HOUSE, KATTUKULAM,
ALANELLUR P.O, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678582
2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD,
KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN -
678001
56
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD,
KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN -
678001
R BY SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR, SPL.GOVT.PLEADER
ADV.SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
57
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1933 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.24655 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT :
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT
BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695023
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 JAYMON JOSEPH
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O JOSEPH, KOOTTUNALAKUNNEL, KOTHAMALLOOR,
MANJOOR P.O KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686603
2 THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
58
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
4 THE SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM,
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
R BY SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR, SPL.GOVT.PLEADER
ADV.SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
59
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1937 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.21007 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT :
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT
BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 16 & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 TO 6:
1 NAFSAL AFSAL,
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. MOHAMMED KOYA, VALAPPIL POTTAMMAL HOUSE,
CHEEKKODU P.O., CHERUVAYUR (VIA.), MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 673645
2 SABEER K.M.,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. ABDULLA RASOOL K.M., VALTHODIKA HOUSE,
PERAMBALAM P.O., ANAKKYAM, MUNDUPARAMBA,
60
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676509
3 USMAN,
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O. MOHAMMED SHA, PALAPPETTA PUTHANPALLIYALI
HOUSE, PANNIPPARA, PERAKKAMANNA, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676122
4 AMEEN THALAKKARA AZHUKAT,
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O. ABOOBACKER HAJI, CHETTIANTHODI HOUSE,
KOTTAPPURAM, ANDIYOORKUNNU P.O., PULICKAL,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673637
5 SHIHABUDHEEN P.K.,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. ALAVI, POOLAKUNNAN HOUSE, THURAKKAL,
THUPPILIKATTUKUNNU, NARUKARA P.O., MANJERI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676122
6 SARA,
AGED 44 YEARS
W/O. MUHAMMED, ERANHIKKAL HOUSE, POOVATTUPARAMBA
P.O., PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673006
7 ANITHA,
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O. SUMITHRAN, MANKUZHI HOUSE, NIRAMAUTHUR P.O.,
TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676109
8 ABDUL GAFOOR P.K.
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. MOOSA, POOVAKKADAN HOUSE, PAYIPPULLU,
THUVVUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679327
9 SAMEERA P.M.,
61
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O. ABDUL GAFOOR P.K., POOVAKKADAN HOUSE,
PAYIPPULLU, THUVVUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679327
10 SIHABUDEEN POOVAKKADAN,
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. MOOSA P.K., POOVAKKADAN HOUSE, PAYIPPULLU,
CHEMBRASSERI, THUVVUR P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679327
11 AZAD P.T.,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. ASAINAR, PANAYAMTHODIKA HOUSE, TANA, MAMPAD
P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676542
12 SAKKEER P.,
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. KUNJOYI, PALATHINGAL HOUSE, EDAVANNA P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676541
13 UDAYAN K.K.,
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O. KOCHUNNI, KODAPAADATH HOUSE, AYAMUCK,
CHIRANELLUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680501
14 LONA,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. LAZAR, 3/348, THEKKEKARA HOUSE,
CHITTILAPPILLY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
680501
15 DINIL DINESH,
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O. DINESH, THOPPIL HOUSE, SUMANGALY, CHIYYARAM
P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680006
62
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
16 RAJAN,
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. RAMAN EZHUTHASSAN, KULANGARAVALAPPIL HOUSE,
AKKARAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680651
17 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTS, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
18 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL STATION,
MALAPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
676505
19 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676505
20 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, COLLECTORATE P.O.,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680003
21 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
THRISSUR, CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE P.O.,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680003
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
ADV.SRI.SAJU J. VALLYARA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
63
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1939 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.40718 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR., PIN - 695014
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:
1 PRASOON
AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN, KAILIVAYIL HOUSE,
IRINGALLUR, VENGARA, THIRURANGADI, MALLAPPURAM,
PIN - 676304
2 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
64
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, TRANS TOWER,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673104
5 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673104
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
ADV.SRI..O.D.SIVADAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
65
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1940 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.3388 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/ 5TH RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR., PIN - 695014
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/5TH RESPONDENT:
1 VEERANKUTTY,
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. ABDULLA, PULIKKOOL HOUSE,
ORAVIL.P.O.,ULLIYERI, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE., PIN
- 673323
2 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
66
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, TRANS TOWER,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
VATAKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN - 673104
5 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673104
R BY SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR, SPL.GOVT.PLEADER
BY ADV.SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
67
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1941 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.40672 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT :
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695014
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:
1 T.L.LONA
AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. LAZAR, THEKKEKKARA HOUSE,
CHITTILAPPILLY.P.O., THRISSUR,, PIN - 680551
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
68
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, TRANS TOWER,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014.
4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673104
5 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673104
R BY SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR, SPL.GOVT.PLEADER
BY ADV.SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
69
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1946 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.7452 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695014
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:
1 ASHOK KUMAR.V,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. VELUSWAMI, AYSWARYA MANDIR,
MUDAPPALLUR.P.O., VAZHANI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN
- 678705
2 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT,
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
70
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, TRANS TOWER,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, PIN - 678001
5 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
ADV.SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
71
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1950 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.35839 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT :
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN -
695023
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:
1 SAJU M.S.,
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O VALSON, SREEVALSAM, ELATHUR P.O, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673303
2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
VATAKARA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, BADAGARA,
VATAKARA, PIN - 673104
72
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRASNPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA, BADAGARA,
VATAKARA, PIN - 673104
R BY SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR, SPL.GOVT.PLEADER
ADV.SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
73
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1957 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.40269 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT
BHAVAN, FORT P.O. THRIVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:
1 ABDUL SALAM,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O ANDRU HAJI, KAVOOR HOUSE, NARIPPATTA P.O. ,
VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673506
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
74
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VATAKARA, MINI
CIVIL STATION, VADAKARA , KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673104
R BY SRI.SANTHOSHKUMAR P. SPL.GOVT.PLADER
ADV.SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
75
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1961 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.22323 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIEF
OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695034
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 4:
1 JAYANAND,
AGED 58 YEARS
CHIRAKKAL HOUSE JAYESH NIVAS, CHERPU P.O.
PERUMBLISSERY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680561
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
76
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN -
676505
4 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN -
676505
R BY SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR, SPL.GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
77
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1963 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.21533 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/13TH RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT
BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 12:
1 KERALA STATE PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS FEDERATION,
WEST PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY THE
GENERAL SECRETARY LAWRENCE BABU. S/O LAWRANCE
AGED 71, RESIDING AT SIJO DALE, MANGAD PO, KOLLAM
-691015, PIN-680020
2 SISUPALAN N.K,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O CHOYIKUTTY, NEELIKODAN HOUSE, MARUTHA P.O,
78
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
VAZHIKKADAVU, MALAPPURAM- (REGISTERED OWNER AND
PERMIT HOLDER OF KL 59/A 1900 ON THE ROUTE
MARUTHAKADAVU -KOZHIKODE), PIN - 679333
3 SHILESH C.K,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O SHIVAN, SHILPAS HOUSE, NEAR EXHATHOOR WEST
L.P SCHOOL, PATHIRIYAD, PINARAYI, KANNOOR (
REGISTERED OWNER AND PERMIT HOLDER OF KL 58/AB
1116 ON THE ROUTE KIZHATHOOR-PAYYANNOOR)., PIN -
670741
4 ASHA DEVI. T,
AGED 62 YEARS
W/O PREMKUMAR, M.S.M TRANSPORTS MANAMEL HOUSE,
KONOTHUKUNNU, THRISSUR, (REGISTERED OWNER AND
PERMIT HOLDER OF KL 45/D 0018 ON THE ROUTE
THRIPRAYAR -THRISSUR -AREKODE), PIN - 680123
5 SAJU M.S,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O VALSALAN ,SREEVALSAM, ELATHUR P.O, KOZHIKODE-
(REGISTERED OWNER AND PERMIT HOLDER OF KL 11/AW
8379 ON THE ROUTE KOZHIKODE-KANNUR), PIN - 679333
6 M.P PRASAD,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O PEETHAMBARAN, MANALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ENADI P.O
, KOTTAYAM,(REGISTERED OWNER AND PERMIT HOLDER OF
KL 36 A/ 5051 KOTTAYAM -KAKKANAD), PIN - 656660
7 ANILKUMAR,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O GOPALAN, PARATHAZHATHU HOUSE, PARATHOD
IDUKKI, (REGISTERED OWNER AND PERMIT HOLDER OF KL
06/G 4162 THROPANKUDY ERNAKULAM VYTILA), PIN -
685604
79
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
8 AJISH.A,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O ASHOKAN, MURAHARA HOUSE, PAYYANAMAM P.O
KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA,(REGISTERED OWNER AND
PERMIT HOLDER OF KL 34/D 1033 KOLLAM- KORUTHOD),
PIN - 689691
9 P.S SABU,
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O ASHOKAN NEELAKANDAN, PAZHOOR HOUSE,
PALAMPARA, KANJIRAPPILLY KOTTAYAM,(REGISTERED
OWNER AND PERMIT HOLDER OF KL 02/BS 9347
MALAYALAPPUZHA- ERNAKULAM)., PIN - 691577
10 AJITHKUMAR K.K,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O KUMARJI, KITTIYANIKKAL HOUSE, WEST KOZHIKULAM
P.O, THODIPUZHA, IDUKKI (REGISTERED OWNER AND
PERMIT HOLDER OF KL 38/E 9599 PALA-SENATHIPATHY),
PIN - 680506
11 E.A GEORGE,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O ANTONY, ELAVANKUDIYIL HOUSE, MATHIRAPPILLY,
KOTHAMANGALAM, (REGISTERED OWNER AND PERMIT
HOLDER OF KL 17/T 3501 KANTHALLOOR - VYTILA), PIN
- 690542
12 N.M GEORGE,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O MATHEW, NALLIKUNNEL KATHALIKKAD P.O
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM-(REGISTERED OWNER AND
PERMIT HOLDER OF KL 17/S 2903 ERNAKULAM,
KANTHALLOOR), PIN - 682051
13 VIPIN N.K,
80
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O PAVITHRAN, NANTHADIYEL HOUSE, KANNAVAM P.O,
THALASSERRY,(REGISTERED OWNER AND PERMIT HOLDER
OF KL 50/H 5990, PALAKKAD- S. BATHERY), PIN -
670650
14 T. HYDER ALI,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O IBRAHIM, THARAVATH HOUSE, NERIPATTA,
KALLACHI, KOZHIKODE,(REGISTERED OWNER AND PERMIT
HOLDER OF KL 18/X 9799 KAYVELI THRISSUR), PIN -
673506
15 MUHAMMED RAFI,
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O SULAIMAN, 2/254 KOTTAKUZHKKAL HOUSE,
KIZHAKKUMPURAM P.O, MANNOOR, PALAKKAD- (REGISTER
OWNER AND PERMIT HOLDER OF KL 53/C 4960 PATAMBI-
PALAKKAD-KOZHIKODE), PIN - 670562
16 THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
17 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CIVIL
STATION, COLLECTORATE ROAD, TALAP, KANNUR, PIN -
670002
18 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOZHIKODE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GROUND FLOOR CIVIL
STATION, WAYANAD RD, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN
- 673020
19 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
VATAKARA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY BADAGARA,
81
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
VATAKARA, PIN - 673104
20 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PIN - 670562
21 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL
STATION RD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
22 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
WAYANAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY CIVIL
STATION, KAIRALI NAGAR, KALPETTA, PIN - 673122
23 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY CIVIL
STATION, AYYANTHOLE PO, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
24 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2 FLOOR, A
3 BLOCK, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN
- 682030
25 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY IDUKKI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY CIVIL STATION,
KUYILIMALA, PINAV POST, IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
26 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
27 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
STADIUM JN, KAIPATTOOR ROAD, NH 183A,
PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN - 698645
82
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
ADV.SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
83
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1966 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.20959 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT
BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 4:
1 NIRMAL P.,
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, PRAYAGA, ARUKIZHAYA, MANJERI
P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676121
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTS, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
84
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL STATION,
MALAPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
676505
4 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676505
R BY SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR, SPL.GOVT.PLEADER
ADV.SRI.SAJU J VALLYARA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
85
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1967 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.21606 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIEF
OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695034
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 4:
1 SASI A.T., AGED 60 YEARS
AMPARAPPILIL, PANICKANKUDY P.O PANICKANKUDY,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685571
2 AJESH THOMAS, SON OF THOMAS, MEENKOLIL HOUSE,
THANMARACHALPURAM ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682021
3 MARYKUTTY SAMUEL, WIFE OF SAMUEL VARGHESE, AGED
80, JOBI SADANAM, ATTACHACKAL P.O, KONNI,
86
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689691
4 MUHAMMED KASSIM, SON OF MUHAMMED, AGED 65,
ELAPARAMBIL HOUSE, SELLIAMPARA, VELLATHUVAL P.O.,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685563
5 BIBU MATHEW,
SON OF MATHAI, AGED 45, KAVUMTHUMKAL HOUSE,
VADAKKUMMURY, KARIMKUNNAM P.O. THODUPUZHA, PIN -
685581
6 NELSON PAUL,
SON OF PAULOSE, AGED 43, AVIRAPPATTU HOUSE,
PAREEKKANNI P.O, NELLIMATTOM, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN
- 686693
7 AJITHKUMAR K.K.,
SON OF KUMARJI, AGED 57, KAITTIYANICKAL HOUSE,
WEST KODIKULAM P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, PIN -
685581
8 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
9 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
10 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
R BY SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR, SPL.GOVT.PLEADER
87
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
88
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1968 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.35761 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695014
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 :
1 MYCLE.P.V
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. VARGHESE, POTTOLIL HOUSE, EDAKKARA,
THALAKKULATHUR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673317
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
89
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, TRANS TOWER,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN - 673104
5 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN - 673104
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
ADV.SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
90
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1970 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.22494 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIEF
OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695034
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 AND 4:
1 JOY JOSEPH,
AGED 59 YEARS
PALAKUNNEL HOUSE, MAMOODU P.O., CHANGANACHERRY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686536
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
91
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., IDUKKI., PIN - 685603
4 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., IDUKKI., PIN - 685603
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
ADV.SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
92
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1974 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.21172 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/6TH RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695004
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5:
1 BINIL THOMAS,
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O. THOMAS, PAMARAKKARAN HOUSE, NEOUNGAPARA,
THURUTHY, VENGOOR, PIN - 683546
2 DIVYA. R,
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O. VINODKUMAR. N, RADHAKRISHNAMANDHIRAM,
THRIKKARIPOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN
93
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
- 686692
3 SIBY GEORGE,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. GEORGE, NELLIKATTIL HOUSE, MALAYINKEEZHU,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
686692
4 C.P. SAMUEL,
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O. PAPPACHAN, CHEMBAKOTTUKUDIYIL, THRIKKARIPOOR
P.O., AYAKKAD, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
686692
5 BINOJ K.K,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. KARUNAKARAN, KALATHIKUDY HOUSE, KARUKADAM
P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
686691
6 LEELA PAULOSE,
AGED 66 YEARS
W/O. P.K. PAULOSE, PARAPURATH HOUSE, WEST
VENGOLA, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN
- 683562
7 PRIYADARSHAN, A.J,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. JAGANNIVASAN NAIR, ARAKKAL HOUSE, VARAPETTY
P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
8 SULFIKKAR K.C.,
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.UMMER K.P., KOKKADAN HOUSE, ALLAPRA P.O.,
KANDANTHARA, VENGOLA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683556
94
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
9 T.A. SUGATHAN,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. ACHUTHAN, THALAPPILLIL HOUSE, AVOLICHAL
P.O., NERIAMANGALAM, CHITTETHUKUDY N, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 686693
10 LIJU V.S,
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O. SASI, VATTAPPARA HOUSE, BAISONVALLEY P.O.,
MUTTUKAD, IDUKKI, PIN - 685565
11 PAUL DIOLSON,
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O. IGNASOUS, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, PALLIVASAL,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685565
12 SUNNY AUGUSTINE,
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. AUGUSTINE, NATTUNILATH HOUSE, MANNAMKANDAM
P.O., 200 ACRE, ADIMALY, IDUKKI, PIN - 685561
13 KURIACHAN K.P.
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. PAULOSE, KUTTIPUZHAYIL HOUSE, MEKKADAMPU
P.O., VALAKOM, PIN - 682316
14 SAJI JACOB,
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.JACOB, CHEERAKATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, PAINGOTTOOR
P.O., AYAMKARA, KEDAVOOR, PIN - 686671
15 JAYESH M.P.,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. VALSAMMA, MULLAKKAL HOUSE, VARAPPETTY,
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
95
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
16 THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
17 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PAINAVU P.O, IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
18 THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
IDUKKI,PAINAVU P.O. , IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
19 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686002
20 THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686002
R BY ADV.SRI.JOICE GEORGE
SMT.LIJI J. VADAKKEDAM
TOM E. JACOB
SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SNTHOSHKUMAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
96
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1976 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.23012 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT:
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT
BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 RAHUL TOM,
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. TOM THOMAS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KONDODY
MOTORS PVT.LTD., KODIMATHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
RESIDING AT KONDODICKAL HOUSE, VADAVATHUR P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686010
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
97
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
CIVIL STATION, KUILIMALA, PINAV P.O, IDUKKI-
685603, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PIN -
686002
4 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION,
KUILIMALA, PINAV P.O, IDUKKI-685603 (THE
DISCRIPTION OF R2 & R3 IS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER
DATED 24/07/2023 IN I.A.1/2023 IN WP(C)
23012/2023.
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
ADV.SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
98
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1977 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.24862 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695023
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 4:
1 ELDHO SUNNY,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. P.V. SUNNY, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE,
KADAYIRUPPU P.0., AIKARANAD NORTH, KOLENCHERY,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682311
2 THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
99
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
MUVATTUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN -
686669
4 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN -
686669
R BY SR.ADV.SRI.P.DEEPAK
SMT.NAZRIN BANU
SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
100
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1979 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.21605 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIEF
OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695034
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 4:
1 SONY KURIAN,
AGED 60 YEARS
PULLAMKALAM HOUSE, MAMOODU P.O., MADAPALLY,
CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686536
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
101
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
4 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
ADV.SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
102
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1985 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.43046 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695014
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:
1 MADHU.K., S/O. RAMACHANDRAN,
AGED 48 YEARS
KUZHIPPATT HOUSE, SAMOOHAM ROAD,
CHALAPPURAM.P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN -
673002
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
103
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, TRANS TOWER,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673104
5 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673104
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
104
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1988 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.28457 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN -
695023
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 TO 19:
1 KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS'
ASSOCIATION,
PALA UNIT, MOOZHAYIL BUILDING, NEAR KOTTARAMATTOM
BUS STAND, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED
BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 686575
2 THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOR GOVERNMENT
OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT
105
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
2ND FLOOR, TRANS TOWER, C.V. RAMAN PILLAI ROAD,
DPI, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695014
4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE (RTO), 5TH FLOOR, KSRTC
TERMINAL, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA,
PIN - 695023
5 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
NEAR ANANDAVALLEESWARAM TEMPLE, CIVIL STATION,
ANANDAVALLEESWARAM, KOLLAM, PIN - 691013
6 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
NEAR STADIUM JUNCTION, AZHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA,
PIN - 689645
7 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
CIVIL STATION, PALACE ROAD, CIVIL STATION WARD,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001
8 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
9 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
PAINAVU, IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
10 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
2ND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANDU, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682030
11 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
106
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
12 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN -
678001
13 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION
ROAD, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
14 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
GROUND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD ROAD,
ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
15 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
CIVIL STATION, KAIRALI NAGAR, KALPETTA, WAYANAD,
PIN - 673122
16 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE ROAD, TALAP, KANNUR,
PIN - 670002
17 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KASARGOD, PIN - 671121
18 THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, 3RD
FLOOR, 'C' WING, LOK NAYAK BHAVAN, KHAN MARKET,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003
19 THE SECRETARY TO THE UNION GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS TRANSPORT
BHAWAN, 1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI, PIN -
110001
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
107
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SR.ADV.
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SMT.SARITHA THOMAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
108
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 2139 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.35646 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695023
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 AND 4:
1 SHAHID,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. AHAMMEDKUTTI, KURUMPATTI HOUSE, NADUVANNUR
P.O, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673614
2 THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
109
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
VATAKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICE, VATAKARA, PIN - 673104
4 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA, REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICE, VATAKARA, PIN - 673104
R BY ADVS.P.DEEPAK (SR.)
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
110
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1990 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.37380 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIEF OFFICE,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695036
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:
1 A.C. BABURAJAN, AGED 52 YEARS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GOKULAM LOGISTICS,
ENIYACHALIL HOUSE, KOKKALLUR P.O., VADAKARA,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673612
2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, VADAKARA, PIN - 673101
111
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, VADAKARA, PIN - 673101
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
112
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1991 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.8068 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695014
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:
1 LIJU.V.S,
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O. SASI.V.K, VATTAPPRA HOUSE, BISONVALLY.P.O.,
MUTTUKAD, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685565
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
113
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, TRANS TOWER,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
CIVIL STATION, IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, PIN - 685603
5 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
CIVIL STATION, IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
114
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1994 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.42828 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR., PIN - 695014
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:
1 RIJO. C.J.
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. JOY, CHITTADI HOUSE, VELUPADAM,
VARANDARAPPALLY, THRISSUR,, PIN - 680303
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
115
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, TRANS TOWER,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695014
4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL STATION,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
5 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
116
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 1997 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.40433 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695014
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERSS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:
1 MOHAN KUMAR,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. RAMASWAMY, 23/10, VINAYAKA HOUSE, SKV
COLLEGE ROAD, KNATTUMKARA.P.O., THRISSUR, PIN -
680011
2 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
117
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, TRANS TOWER,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673104
5 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673104
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
118
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 2003 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.22445 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695014
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1-4:
1 K.P. MOHANAN,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O GOVINDAN, THEKKENMARKANDY, AZHIKODE, KANNUR,
PIN - 670009
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
119
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, TRANSPORT TOWER,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KASARAGOD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN -
671123
5 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
CIVIL STATION, KASARAGOD, PIN 671123., PIN -
671123
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
120
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 2004 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.40736 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR., PIN - 695014
BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT 1 TO 4:
1 BHASKARAN,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNAN, KAILIVAYIL HOUSE, IRINGALLUR,
VENGARA, THIRURANGADI, MALLAPPURAM, PIN - 676304
2 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT,
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
121
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
3 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, MOTOR VEHICLE
DEPARTMENT,
TRANS TOWER, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695014
4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673104, REPRESENTED
BY ITS SECRETARY.,
5 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673104
R BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1821/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
122
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
"CR"
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
These writ appeals filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High
Court Act, 1958, arise out of a common judgment of the learned
Single Judge dated 06.11.2024 in W.P.(C)No.17469 of 2023 and
connected matters. W.A.Nos.1886 of 2024 arising out of
W.P.(C)No.17469 of 2023 and W.A.No.160 of 2025 arising out of
W.P.(C)No.24655 of 2023 are filed by the State of Kerala.
W.A.No.1980 of 2024 arising out W.P.(C)No.18290 of 2023 is filed
by Forum for Justice (FFJ) KSRTC Employees and Family Welfare
Society, a third party to that writ petition, after obtaining the leave
of this Court by the order dated 05.12.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2025.
All other writ appeals are filed by KSRTC (Kerala State Road
Transport Corporation).
2. By the order dated 14.11.2024 in W.A.No.1821 of 2024,
the learned Special Government Pleader was directed to make
available for the perusal of this Court the files relating to Ext.P14
notification dated 03.05.2023 issued by the State Government.
Pursuant to the said direction, the learned Special Government
123
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
Pleader has made available for the perusal of this Court the files
relating to Ext.P14 notification.
3. Heard detailed arguments of the learned Senior
Counsel for KSRTC, as instructed by the learned Standing Counsel
for KSRTC; the learned Special Government Pleader for the State
and official respondents; the learned Senior Counsel for the party
respondents in W.A.No.1821 of 2024, who are petitioners in
W.P.(C)No.18290 of 2023; the respective counsel for the party
respondents in other writ appeals; and also the learned counsel
for the appellant in W.A.No.1980 of 2024.
4. Since the issues raised in all the writ appeals are
common, arguments were heard treating W.A.No.1821 of 2024
arising out of W.P.(C)No.18290 of 2023 as the leading case.
5. W.P.(C)No.18290 of 2023 is one filed by respondents 1
to 5 in W.A.No.1821 of 2024, who are stage carriage operators
conducting stage carriage service on the strength of the permits
issued to their respective stage carriages, under the provisions of
Chapter V of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which deals with control
of transport vehicles. The details of the regular permits held by
124
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
the writ petitioners, as stated in paragraph 2 of the writ petition,
are as follows;
Sl.No. Name of Permit Year of Permit No. Route
Holder issue
1 Rajesh K. Jacob 2001 5/1006/2001 Elamkad-Panathur
2 Rajesh K. Jacob 2001 13/24/2001 Kottayam-Panathur
3 K.T. Thomas 2000 5/10022/200 Elamkad-Panathur
0
4 N.M. Biju 2001 5/30/2001 Kottayam-
Ambayathodu
5 N.M. Biju 2000 5/30/2000 Kottayam-
Ambayathodu
6 Vinod Thomas 1992 13/1090/199 Chandanakampara-
2 Kottayam
7 Joshy Thomas 1996 13/1090/199 Kottayam-Panathur
6
They filed W.P.(C)No.18290 of 2023, seeking a writ of certiorari to
quash Ext.P9 notification dated 14.09.2020 and Ext.P14
notification dated 03.05.2023 issued by the State Government; a
declaration that Ext.P14 notification dated 03.05.2023 has lapsed
and is consequently unenforceable by virtue of the operation of
sub-section (4) of section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; a
declaration that clause (a) of Rule 246 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1989, in so far as it insists that objections to the draft
scheme are to be filed within 30 days of its publication is ultra
vires sub-section (2) of Section 102 of the Act; a writ of
125
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
mandamus commanding the 2nd and 4th respondents in the writ
petition to consider and pass final orders on the applications for
renewal of regular permits made by the petitioners, untrammelled
by Ext.P14 scheme, and in the light of Ext.P7 decision of this Court
in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Saju Varkey
and others [2018 (4) KHC 617]; and a writ of mandamus
commanding the 3rd and 5th respondents in the writ petition to
ensure status quo of the operation of the petitioners’ stage
carriage services, by issuing temporary permits under Section
87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, untrammelled by
Ext.P14 scheme, pending disposal of their applications for renewal
of permit.
6. In W.P.(C)No.18290 of 2023, the 6th respondent KSRTC
filed a counter affidavit dated 09.06.2023, opposing the reliefs
sought for, producing therewith Exts.R6(a) to R6(d) documents.
The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit dated 16.06.2023,
producing therewith Ext.P15 document. Along with I.A.No.1 of
2023, the petitioners have produced Exts.P16 to P17 documents.
The 1st respondent State filed a counter affidavit dated 22.07.2023
in the connected writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C)No.18105 of 2023,
126
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
opposing the reliefs sought for, which was adopted in
W.P.(C)No.18290 of 2023, by filing an adoption memo by the
learned Special Government Pleader. Along with I.A.No.3 of 2023
filed by the 6th respondent KSRTC, Ext.R6(e) document was placed
on record.
7. After considering the rival contentions, in the light of
the relevant provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act and the
Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, the learned Single Judge concluded
in the impugned judgment that, as evident from Ext.P14
notification, 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, i.e., Ext.P9 notification
dated 14.09.2020, except for saying that the objections were
considered, and objectors were heard as mentioned in the final
notification, i.e., Ext.P14 notification dated 03.05.2023. The
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government does
not disclose any material suggesting in what manner the
objections were considered and rejected and the reasons thereof.
The proposed scheme for modification of the existing scheme was
published on 14.09.2020, vide Ext.P9 notification, and the
127
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
modified scheme was published verbatim as the proposed
scheme, on 03.05.2023 vide Ext.P14 notification. If the State
Government was of the opinion that the modification of the
existing scheme was in the public interest, then the final
modified scheme ought to have been published immediately,
after hearing the objectors. Here, the final notification, i.e., Ext.P14
notification, came more than two years and eight months after
the date of the proposed scheme. A scheme cannot be said to be
invalid, if it is the same as was proposed. However, the order must
disclose that due consideration has been given to the objections and
some reasons must come forth for rejecting the objections.
8. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge
noticed that, in B.A. Linga Reddy v. Karnataka State Transport
Authority [(2015) 4 SCC 515] the Apex Court held that the State
Government acts as a quasi-judicial authority while considering
the objections. In the absence of reasons for rejecting the
objections, the final scheme was rendered illegal. The learned
Single Judge held that the final notification, i.e., Ext.P14 notification,
suffers from illegality, inasmuch as there is nothing on record to
suggest that due consideration was given to the objections filed
128
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
by the petitioners and others and that, they were rejected by
some reasoned order.
9. The learned Single Judge found that the submission
advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for KSRTC that, if the
scheme is published in Form F of Appendix-I of the Kerala Motor
Vehicles Rules, it would be sufficient compliance with the
requirement of the law, has no force. The final scheme is published
in Form F, but the reasons for disposing/rejecting the objections
must come forth from the order passed by the competent authority,
who considered the objections and heard the objectors. Before the
learned Single Judge, it was pointed out that the proposed
scheme was not in compliance with a mandatory requirement of
Rule 246 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, inasmuch as, the
proposed scheme published on 14.09.2020, vide Ext.P9
notification, did not mention the place, date and time for hearing
objections, which is the mandatory requirement of Rule 246. The
proposed notification in Form E was defective, and therefore, the final
notification cannot be said to be in accordance with the law. The
learned Single Judge found substance in the said submission of
the learned counsel for the petitioners. In view of the said finding,
129
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions by setting
aside Ext.P14 notification dated 03.05.2023.
10. The learned Senior Counsel for KSRTC, as instructed
by the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC, and also the learned
Special Government Pleader contended that the impugned
judgment dated 06.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(C)No.17469 of 2023 and connected matters is opposed to
law and facts of the case. Hence interference of this Court in the
exercise of the appellate jurisdiction under Section 5(i) of the
Kerala High Court Act, 1958 is warranted. The learned Single
Judge failed to note the law laid down by the Constitution Bench
in H.C.Narayanappa v. State of Mysore [AIR 1960 SC 1073],
wherein it was held that a scheme is not open to challenge either
on the ground that another view is possible or that detailed
reasons have not been given for upholding or rejecting the
objections put forth in the representations made to the State
Government. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate in the
right perspective the arguments advanced by the State
Government and KSRTC, before concluding that there is nothing
on record to suggest that due consideration was given to the
130
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
objections filed by the writ petitioners and others and as such,
Ext.P14 notification dated 03.05.2023 cannot be sustained in law.
They pointed out that Ext.P14 notification has been published in
the statutory format in Form F, which does not provide any space
for stating reasons for rejecting or accepting the objections raised
in the representations made to the State Government. The factual
aspects and the law laid down by the Apex Court in B.A.Linga
Reddy v. Karnataka State Transport Authority [(2015) 4
SCC 515] has no application to the facts and circumstances of
the case on hand, and the said aspect was also not properly
considered by the learned Single Judge while rending the
impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge failed to note that
Ext.P9 notification dated 14.09.2020 was published at a time
when there were restrictions due to the spread of the Covid-19
pandemic. The Central Government, as well as the State
Government, issued various guidelines from 26.03.2020 onwards,
under the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, for
the containment of the Covid-19 pandemic. At the time of
issuance of Ext.P9 notification such guidelines were in force, as
per which all public outdoor gatherings with more than 20 people
131
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
and indoor events with more than 10 people were banned. In view
of the provisions contained in the Disaster Management Act, the
orders issued under the provisions of the said Act were having an
overriding effect upon other provisions of law. Therefore, the
learned Single Judge went wrong in interfering with Ext.P14
notification dated 03.05.2023 on the ground that Ext.P9
notification published on 14.09.2020 did not mention the place,
date and time for hearing objections, which is a mandatory
requirement of Rule 246 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
The learned Single Judge failed to note that about 700 objections
received by the State Government, pursuant to Ext.P9 notification,
were considered by the State before issuing Ext.P14 notification,
as discernible from the files, and as such there is substantial
compliance of Rule 246 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. Relying
on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in
Kasaragode District Bus Owners Association v. State of
Kerala [1990 (2) KLT 830], they contended that so long as the
scheme gives the requirements under the statute, which the
Section itself prescribes, there will be a prima facie compliance for
the purpose of validity of the scheme. The statute does not direct
132
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
the disclosure of the materials which are the basis for the
formation of the opinion by the State. They contended further that
the writ petitioners have no locus standi to challenge Ext.P14
notification as they are not saved operators, since their right to
operate on long-distance routes exceeding 140 Kms. has already
been extinguished by operation of law as per Ext.R6(a) Super
Class Scheme dated 16.07.2013 and Ext.R6(b) notification dated
15.03.2017, i.e., Kerala Motor Vehicles (1st Amendment) Rules,
2017, 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.
As per sub-clause (oa) so inserted, ‘Ordinary Limited Stop Service’
means a service, which is operated on a route having a distance
of not exceeding 140 Kms., with limited number of stops, having
at least one stop in every fare stage. The challenge made by the
private operators against the said amendment was repelled by a
Division Bench of this Court in Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation v. Saju Varkey and others [2018 (4) KLJ 145].
The said legal aspect was not considered by the learned Single
Judge while rendering the impugned judgment. The learned
133
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.1980 of 2024 adopted the
arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for KSRTC and
the learned Special Government Pleader.
11. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the
party respondents-writ petitioners in W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and
the respective counsel for the party respondents-writ petitioners
in the connected writ appeals contended that the judgment of the
learned Single Judge, which is one rendered after taking note of
the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides, warrants
no interference in these writ appeals.
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
134
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
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 argument, 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
135
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
to leave open the said contention to be raised and considered by
the appropriate authority at the appropriate stage.
14. On the challenge made against Ext.P14 notification
dated 03.05.2023, which was accepted in the impugned judgment
dated 06.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.17469
of 2023, 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 pointed out that the learned
Single Judge rightly found in the judgment that there was no due
consideration of the objections raised in the representations made
by the petitioners and others to Ext.P9 notification dated
14.09.2020. The finding of the learned Single Judge on the above
aspect, taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in B.A.
Linga Reddy v. Karnataka State Transport Authority [(2015)
4 SCC 515], warrants no interference in these writ appeals. Mere
publication of Ext.P14 notification in Form F would not be sufficient
compliance of the requirements of Rule 246 of the Kerala Motor
Vehicles Rules, when there is nothing on the files to suggest that
due consideration was given to the objections contained in the
representations made by the petitioners and others in response to
136
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
Ext.P9 notification dated 14.09.2020. When the procedure for
framing a scheme under the provisions of Section 99 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, read with the relevant provisions under the Kerala
Motor Vehicles Rules and that for modification or cancellation of
an approved scheme under Section 102 of the said Act read with
the relevant provisions under the said Rules are different, the
contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for KSRTC and
the learned Special Government Pleader, placing reliance on the
judgment of a learned Single Judge in Kasaragod District Bust
Owners Association v. State of Kerala [1990 (2) KLT 830],
which was one rendered in the context of Section 99 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, read with Section 236 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles
Rules, can only be repelled as untenable.
15. 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
137
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
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.
16. Section 99 of the Act deals with preparation and
publication of 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
138
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
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.
17. Section 100 of the Act deals with 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
139
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
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
140
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
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
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.
18. Section 101 of the Act deals with 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.
141
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
19. Section 102 of the Act deals with cancellation or
modification of 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.
20. Section 103 of the Act deals with issue of permits to
State Transport Undertakings. As per sub-section (1) of Section
103, where, in pursuance of an approved scheme, any State
142
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
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
143
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
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).
21. Section 104 of the Act deals with 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.
144
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
22. Section 107 of the Act deals with 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.
145
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
23. 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
146
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
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 is not permissible under Section 68-FF; the
147
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
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
148
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
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.
24. In Adarsh Travels Bus Service [(1985) 4 SCC 557]
the question placed for the consideration by the Constitution
Bench of the Apex Court was, where a route is nationalised under
Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939),
whether a private operator with a permit to ply a stage carriage
over another route, but which has a common overlapping sector
with the nationalised route, can ply his vehicle over that part of
149
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
the overlapping common sector if he does not pick up or drop
passengers on the overlapping part of the route. The Constitution
Bench noticed that Chapter IV-A of Act IV of 1939 was bodily
introduced into it by Amending Act 100 of 1956. It further
underwent substantial amendments by Act 56 of 1970, which
came into effect on 02.03.1970. 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. While the provisions of
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 ‘take-
over’ of the operation of a road transport service by the State
Transport Undertaking in relation to any area or route or portion
thereof. While, on the one hand, the paramount consideration is
the public interest, the interests of the existing operators are
sufficiently taken care of and slight inconveniences to the
150
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
travelling public, as may be inevitable, are sought to be reduced
to a minimum. To begin with, the State Transport Undertaking
must think it necessary in the public interest to provide efficient,
adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated State transport
services in relation to any area or route or portion thereof, to the
exclusion complete or partial of other persons or otherwise. This
is the initial requirement for the initiation of a scheme. Even at
that stage, the State Transport Undertaking is required to apply
its mind to the question of complete or partial exclusion of other
persons or otherwise from operating transport services in relation
to any area or route or portion thereof. There is ample and
sufficient guidance to the State Transport Undertaking for the
application of mind. Thereafter, objections to the scheme are to
be heard. All existing operators providing transport facilities along
or near the area or the route proposed to be covered by the
scheme are to be heard. Therefore, it will be open to any operator
who is likely to be affected by total or partial exclusion to object
to the scheme and suggest such modification as may protect him.
A hearing is required to be given and the hearing is not an empty
formality as decisions of the Court have shown. Even that is not
151
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
the end of the matter. Even thereafter, the State Transport
Undertaking, as well as the State Government, are empowered to
cancel or modify the scheme under Section 68-E. In other words,
if in the actual working of the approved scheme, any difficulty or
hardship is experienced by the public, or for that matter by other
operators, such difficulty may be removed and hardship relieved
by appropriate action under Section 68-E. Both Section 68-F and
the proviso to Section 68-FF provide for the issue of temporary
permits to private operators if the State Transport Undertaking has
not applied for a permit temporary or otherwise in respect of a
scheme published or approved. Thus, the Constitution Bench
found that at every stage, abundant provision is made to protect
the public interest as well the interest of private operators by
providing for consideration and reconsideration of any problems
that may arise out of a proposed, published or approved scheme.
It is in that context that the provisions under Section 68-C and
Section 68-FF will have to be construed.
25. 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
152
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
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-
153
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
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
154
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
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.
26. In Pattabhirami Reddy v. Secretary to Govt. [AIR
1988 AP 129], one of the contentions raised before a Full Bench
155
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was that under Section 68-D
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939) the objections
should have been disposed of giving reasons in a judicial way, and
the copy of the orders passed by the Minister who heard the
objections, should have been furnished to the petitioners, as
otherwise, it would be violative of judicial procedure and the
principles of natural justice. Dealing with that contention, the Full
Bench found that the Government hearing the objections and
passing orders under Section 68-D of the Act is only a quasi-
judicial authority, not a judicial authority. The procedure to be
followed is as laid down in Chapter IV-A of the Act. There is no
provision in Chapter IV-A in regard to the manner in which the
objections are to be disposed of. If a fair hearing has been given
to the parties, and the representations of the Corporation and the
objections of the operators and others had been given due
consideration, that would be sufficient compliance in terms of
Section 68-D of the Act. The Full Bench held that the petitioners
are not entitled either to insist on a detailed discussion in regard
to the reasons which led to the rejection of each of their objections
or to have a copy of such order. The order passed by the
156
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
Government shows that the salient features in the representations
and objections had been considered, and it was only after
satisfying himself of the feasibility of the schemes that the Minister
accorded approval to them.
27. in M. Madan Mohan Rao v. Union of India [(2002)
6 SCC 348] the controversy raised before a Two-Judge Bench of
the Apex Court relates to the validity of the notification issued by
the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 27.01.2000 approving the
schemes submitted by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation for exclusive operation of stage carriage services on
certain routes, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 100
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The pari materia provisions of
Sections 99 and 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (new Act) are
Sections 68-C and 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (old Act).
The Apex Court found that it is clear from the provisions in sub-
section (1) of Section 99(1) of the new Act that the State
Government is mandated to form an 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
157
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
class of such services in relation to any area or route or operation
thereof should be run and operated by the State Transport
Undertaking whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other
persons or otherwise before publishing the proposal in the Official
Gazette and in local newspapers. In sub-section (1) of Section 100
it is provided that on the publication of any proposal regarding a
scheme in the Official Gazette and in newspapers, any person may
file objections to it before the State Government within 30 days
from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. In sub-
section (2) of Section 100 a provision is made that 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 the proposal. On
reading the above statutory provisions together it is clear that the
objection which may be raised by any person to the proposed
nationalisation scheme must relate to the matters about which the
State Government is required to form an opinion under the statute
i.e. for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical
and proper transport service it is necessary in the public interest
158
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
that the road transport services on the routes should be run and
operated by the State Transport Undertakings to the complete or
partial exclusion of other persons. Therefore, it follows that the
objection to be filed by an objector should be related to only these
relevant factors and he is not entitled to raise any other objection
which is irrelevant and extraneous to the provisions of the statute.
28. In the exercise of the rule-making powers under
Section 107 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the State
Government made the following provisions in the Kerala Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1988, for the purpose of carrying into effect the
provisions of Chapter VI, namely, the form in which any proposal
regarding a scheme may be published under Section 99; the
manner in which objections may be filed under sub-section (1) of
Section 100; the manner in which objections may be considered
and disposed of under sub-section (2) of Section 100; the form in
which any approved scheme may be published under sub-section
(3) of Section 100; etc.
29. Rule 236 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules deals with
the manner of notifying schemes. As per Rule 236, every scheme
proposed by the State Government regarding the operation of
159
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
road transport services by the State Transport Undertaking under
Section 99 of the Act shall be in Form A and shall be published in
the Official Gazette and in not less than one daily newspaper in
the regional language circulating in the area involved. A copy of
each of every scheme as proposed to be published in the Gazette
shall be forwarded to the State Transport Undertaking, to the
Secretary of the State Transport Authority and the Regional
Transport Authority concerned. Copies of the scheme shall, also
be put up on the notice boards of the offices of the State Transport
Undertaking, the State Transport Authority and the Regional
Transport Authority concerned.
30. Rule 237 of the Rules, which deals with the manner of
filing objections, reads thus;
“Rule 237: Manner of filing objections.- (1) Any person
affected by the scheme published under Section 99 of the
Act may within 30 days from the date of publication of the
scheme in the Official Gazette file his objections thereto
before the Secretary to Government, Public Works and
Transport Department, Secretariate, Trivandrum and shall
simultaneously forward a copy each of the objections to the
State Transport Undertaking, the State Transport Authority
and the Regional Transport Authority concerned furnishing
the following particulars:-
(a) Name and address of the objector;
160
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
(b) Memorandum setting forth concisely the grounds of
objection, signed by the objector or his authorised
agent, and accompanied by six additional copies;
(c) Whether he is an operator along or near the area or
route included in the scheme notified by the State
Government;
(d) if reply to item (c) is in the affirmative, the following
particulars shall be furnished:-
(i) Route with termini and intermediate stations, for which
the operator holds the permit;
(ii) Route length – in Kilometre;
(iii) Extent of overlapping on the route included in the
scheme with the overlapping distance;
(iv) Number of single trips operated in a day;
(v) Timings of services operated;
(vi) Registration number of vehicles operated;
(vii) Type and seating capacity of vehicles operated;
(viii) Date of expiry of the permit;
(ix) Arrangements made for housing; maintenance and
repairs of vehicles;
(x) Number of persons employed – (driver, conductor,
checking inspector, cleaner, etc.) showing their
qualification age and length of service;
(xi) Details of machinery and equipments and reserve
buses owned by the operator; and
(xii) Any other particulars to indicate the efficiency of the
services operated by the operator.
(2) No objection in respect of any scheme shall be
considered, unless it is made in accordance with sub-rule
161
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448(1).” (underline supplied)
31. Rule 238 of the Rules deals with consideration of
objections. As per clause (a) of Rule 238, the Chief Minister or any
other Minister nominated by him or any officer nominated by the
Government in this behalf, shall be the authority to consider the
objections filed and hear the objectors. As per clause (b) of Rule
238, the representatives of the State Transport Undertaking and
the objectors or their authorised representative, if they so desire,
shall be heard. The place, date and time of the hearing shall be
communicated to the concerned persons at least fourteen days
before the date of the hearing.
32. Rule 239 of the Rules deals with the manner of
publishing the approved scheme. As per Rule 239, any scheme for
road transport services as approved or modified under sub-section
(2) of Section 100 of the Act shall be notified in Form B in the
Official Gazette and in one daily newspaper in the same manner
as provided in Rule 236.
33. Rule 240 of the Rules deals with the manner of making
application for permits. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 240, every
application for a permit by the State Transport Undertaking under
162
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
Chapter VI of the Act, shall be in the following forms, namely; (a)
in respect of a pucca permit – Form P.St.S.A. (STU); (b) in respect
of a temporary permit – Form P.Tem.A. (STU). As per sub-rule (2)
of Rule 240, the fee for every stage carriage permit shall be the
same as prescribed in Rule 165. Rule 241 of the Rules deals with
the issue of permit. As per Rule 241, on receipt of an application
for a permit under Rule 240, the Transport Authority shall issue
the permit, on production of the records relating to the vehicle.
34. Rule 242 of the Rules deals with the cancellation of
existing permits. As per clause (a) of Rule 242, the State or
Regional Transport Authority concerned shall, before making an
order either cancelling any existing permit under clause (b) or
modifying the terms of any existing permit under clause (c) of
sub-section (2) of Section 103 of the Act, for the purpose of giving
effect to an approved scheme, issue notice in Form C informing
the affected operators, of the action proposed to be taken and
giving them time of not less than thirty days to make
representations against the proposed action. As per clause (b) of
Rule 242, any person making the representation under clause (a)
shall send his representation addressed to the Secretary of the
163
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as
the case may be, and simultaneously send a copy to the State
Transport Undertaking.
35. Rule 243 of the Rules deals with the manner of making
representation. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 243, every person
making a representation under clause (a) of Rule 242 shall furnish
his correct address along with his representation. As per sub-rule
(2) of Rule 243, no representation in pursuance of a notice under
Rule 242 shall be considered by the State or the Regional
Transport Authority, unless it is made in writing before the date
specified and unless a copy thereof is furnished simultaneously to
the State Transport Undertaking by the person making such
representation.
36. Rule 244 of the Rules deals with the disposal of
representation. As per Rule 244, where a representation under
Rule 242 is made, the State Transport Authority or the Regional
Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall dispose of the
representation at a public hearing at which the State Transport
Undertaking and the person making the representation shall be
given an opportunity of being heard in person or by a duly
164
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
authorised representative.
37. As per Rule 245 of the Rules, the holder of the cancelled
permit has to submit a statement. Rule 245 provides that, where
in the exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) or (c) of sub-
section (2) of Section 103 of the Act any existing permit is
cancelled or the terms thereof are modified, the holder of the
permit shall submit a statement in Form D with the original
permits to the State Transport Undertaking and send a copy
thereof to the State Transport Authority, or the Regional Transport
Authority, as the case may be, within seven days from the date on
which the cancellation or modification of the permit became
effective.
38. Rule 246 of the Rules deals with modification of the
approved scheme. Rule 246 reads thus;
“Rule 246. Modification of approved scheme.- (a) Any
scheme by the State Government under sub-section (1) of
Section 102 of the Act to modify an approved scheme shall
be in Form “E” and shall be published in the Official Gazette
and in not less than one daily newspaper in the regional
language circulating in the area involved. A copy of this
scheme shall be sent to the State Transport Undertaking and
to any other person, who in the opinion of the State
Government is likely to be affected by the proposed
165
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448modification. Copy shall also be sent to the Secretary of the
State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport
Authority concerned.
(b) The State Transport Undertaking or the other person
concerned may, within thirty days from the date of
publication of the scheme in the Gazette, file objections
thereto, before the Secretary to Government, Public Works
and Transport Department, Government Secretariate,
Trivandrum. The objection shall be in the form of a
memorandum setting forth concisely the grounds of
objection, and shall be signed by the objector or his
authorised representative. Six additional copies of the
memorandum shall also be sent.
(c) The objection shall be heard by the same authority and
in the same manner as provided in Rule 238.
(d) Any scheme as modified by Government under sub-
section (1) of Section 102 of the Act shall be notified in the
Gazette in Form “F”.”
39. Rule 247 of the Rules deals with service of orders. As
per Rule 247, every order under this chapter, except an order
made by the State Government either approving or modifying a
scheme, shall be served – (a) by tendering or delivering a copy
thereof to the person on whom it is to be served or to his
authorised agent; or (b) by sending it by Registered Post
acknowledgement due, at the last known address of the person
on whom it is to be served; or (c) by fixing it on a conspicuous
166
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
part of the premises where he last resided or where he had his
last place of business, when service according to clauses (a) or (b)
is not practicable.
40. A reading of the aforesaid provisions under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, in
the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra,
makes it explicitly clear that for the publication of any proposal
regarding a scheme, as provided under sub-section (1) of Section
99 of the Act, the State Government has to form an 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. As per the requirements of sub-
section (1) of Section 99 of the Act, the proposal regarding the
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 be
167
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
published in the Official Gazette of the State 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.
41. As per the requirements of sub-section (2) of Section
100 of the Act, the State Government may, after considering the
objections received within thirty days from the date of publication
of the proposal in the Official Gazette, 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 manner provided in sub-section (3), 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.
168
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
42. In the context of the provisions contained under
Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939),
which are pari materia to the provisions under Chapter VI of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Constitution Bench held in Adarsh
Travels Bus Service [(1985) 4 SCC 557] that 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. The
paramount consideration is the public interest. The interests of the
existing operators are sufficiently taken care of and slight
inconveniences to the travelling public, as may be inevitable, are
sought to be reduced to a minimum. The objections to the scheme
are to be heard. All existing operators providing transport facilities
along or near the area or the route proposed to be covered by the
scheme are to be heard. It will be open to any operator who is
likely to be affected by total or partial exclusion to object to the
scheme and suggest such modification as may protect him. The
hearing required to be given is not an empty formality. If in the
169
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
actual working of the approved scheme, any difficulty or hardship
is experienced by the public, or for that matter by other operators,
such difficulty may be removed and hardship relieved by
appropriate action under Section 68-E. Therefore, the Constitution
Bench found that at every stage, abundant provision is made to
protect the public interest as well the interest of private operators
by providing for consideration and reconsideration of any
problems that may arise out of a proposed, published or approved
scheme.
43. In the decision of the Constitution Bench in G.T.
Venkataswamy Reddy [(2016) 8 SCC 402], which is one
rendered taking note of the decision of another Constitution Bench
in Adarsh Travels Bus Service [(1985) 4 SCC 557], it was
held that Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (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
170
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
portion thereof. It may do so if it is necessary in the public interest.
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.
44. The cancellation or modification of an approved scheme
is governed by the provisions under Section 102 of the Motor
Vehicles Act. In view of the provisions under 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 the State Transport Undertaking and
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 the
requirements of 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 language circulating in the area in which it is proposed
171
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
to be covered by such modification, together with the date and the
time and place at which any representation received in this behalf
will be heard by the State Government. The date of hearing shall
not be less than thirty days from such publication in the Official
Gazette.
45. As already noticed hereinbefore, Rule 236 of the Kerala
Motor Vehicles Rules deals with the manner of notifying the
scheme proposed by the State Government regarding the
operation of road transport services by the State Transport
Undertaking under Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As per
Rule 236, every such scheme proposed by the State Government
shall be in Form A and shall be published in the Official Gazette
and in not less than one daily newspaper in the regional language
circulating in the area involved. As per the requirements of Rule
236, a copy of each of every scheme as proposed to be published
in the Gazette shall be forwarded to the State Transport
Undertaking, to the Secretary of the State Transport Authority and
the Regional Transport Authority concerned. Copies of the scheme
shall, also be put up on the notice boards of the offices of the State
Transport Undertaking, the State Transport Authority and the
172
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
Regional Transport Authority concerned. Whereas, in the case of
modification of an approved scheme, as per clause (a) of Rule 246
of the Rules, any such scheme by the State Government under
sub-section (1) of Section 102 of the Act shall be in Form E and
shall be published in the Official Gazette and in not less than one
daily newspaper in the regional language circulating in the area
involved. As per the requirements of clause (a) of Rule 246, a copy
of the scheme shall be sent to the State Transport Undertaking
and to any other person, who in the opinion of the State
Government is likely to be affected by the proposed modification.
A copy of the scheme shall also be sent to the Secretary of the
State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority
concerned.
46. In view of the provisions under clause (b) of Rule 246,
the State Transport Undertaking or the other person concerned
may, within thirty days from the date of publication of the scheme
in the Gazette, file objections thereto, before the Secretary to
Government, Public Works and Transport Department,
Government Secretariate, Trivandrum. The objection shall be in
the form of a memorandum setting forth concisely the grounds of
173
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
objection, and shall be signed by the objector or his authorised
representative. Six additional copies of the memorandum shall
also be sent. As provided under clause (c) of Rule 246, the
objection shall be heard by the same authority and in the same
manner as provided in Rule 238, which deals with the
consideration of objections by persons affected by the scheme
published under Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As per
provided under clause (a) of Rule 238, the Chief Minister or any
other Minister nominated by him or any officer nominated by the
Government in this behalf, shall be the authority to consider the
objections filed and hear the objectors. In view of the provisions
under clause (b) of Rule 238, the representatives of the State
Transport Undertaking and the other person concerned, if they so
desire, shall be heard. As per clause (d) of Rule 247, any scheme
as modified by Government under sub-section (1) of Section 102
of the Act shall be notified in the Gazette in Form F.
47. In the instant case, admittedly, Ext.P9 notification
dated 14.09.2020 issued by the State Government, which is one
issued under clause (a) of Rule 246 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles
Rules, in Form E, to modify the approved scheme under sub-
174
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
section (1) of Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, did not specify
the date and the time and place at which the representation
received will be heard and considered by the Government, as per
the requirements of sub-section (2) of Section 102. In addition to
that, a copy of the scheme by the State Government under sub-
section (1) of Section 102 to modify the approved scheme, was
not sent to persons who, in the opinion of the State Government,
are likely to be affected by the proposed modification.
48. Relying on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this
Court in Kasaragod District Bus Owners Association v. State
of Kerala [1990 (2) KLT 830] the learned Special Government
Pleader and also the learned Senior Counsel for KSRTC contended
that publication of Ext.P9 notification 14.09.2020 issued by the
State Government in the Kerala Gazette and one daily newspaper
in the regional language circulating in the area involved would
satisfy the requirements of sub-section (2) of Section 102 of the
Motor Vehicles Act and clause (a) of Rule 246 of the Kerala Motor
Vehicles Rules.
49. In Kasaragod District Bus Owners Association
[1990 (2) KLT 830] the challenge made in the original petitions
175
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
filed before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
was against the nationalisation of five routes mentioned in the
draft scheme, lying between Kasaragod and Kanhangad. The State
Government published a scheme in Kerala Gazette dated
18.01.1990, under Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with
Rule 236 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, since it was of the
opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate,
economical and properly co-ordinated passenger road transport
service, it was necessary in the public interest that the passenger
road transport services mentioned in the five routes should be run
and operated by the State Transport Undertaking, namely, KSRTC.
The scheme provided that the five routes detailed in the annexure
to the notification dated 18.01.1990 will be operated by KSRTC in
the manner provided therein. The petitioner in O.P.No.5561 of
1990 raised a contention that he could not file objections against
the said notification because gazette was not available in
Kasaragod in time.
50. In Kasaragod District Bus Owners Association
[1990 (2) KLT 830] the learned Single Judge noticed that the
scheme was prepared and published as laid down in Section 99 of
176
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
the Motor Vehicles Act in the official gazette and also in
Desabhimani daily. The fact that the proposal has been accepted
in toto is not a ground to say that the person who is required to
exercise the power of examining the proposal has not considered
or failed to carry out the function vested in the Act. In T.G.
Mudaliar v. State of Tamil Nadu [AIR 1973 SC 974] the Apex
Court observed that the mere fact that the schemes were
approved without any modification cannot establish that the
Secretary, Home, who exercises the functions of the State
Government under Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
had failed to carry out his functions as laid down in Section 68-D
or that he had approved the scheme without any modification
because the Government orders contained language of mandatory
nature.
51. In Kasaragod District Bus Owners Association
[1990 (2) KLT 830] the learned Single Judge noticed that when
the scheme is published in the manner provided under Section 99
of the Motor Vehicles Act, the petitioners and other operators are
required under the law to file objection in the manner provided,
within 30 days from the date of its publication in the official
177
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
gazette. Rule 237 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules provides for
the manner of filing objections. The objector should furnish the
particulars provided in Rule 237, which is a salutary provision so
that the authority can advert to a grievance of the objector in this
regard. The objector has to show in what respect the scheme is
wanting. He has to explain in what manner the consideration has
not been given and whether the scheme failed to provide for
efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated
passenger road transport services. For considering all these
aspects the objection in the prescribed manner is required. The
objector has to point out that the scheme is not calculated for
providing a road transport service which can be considered
efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road
transport service. Non-compliance to the manner of providing
objections itself will be a ground for dismissing the writ petition.
The learned Single Judge noticed that the petitioner in
O.P.No.5003 of 1990 filed Ext.P4 statutory objection, which does
not contain the details required under Rules 236 and 237 of the
Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, and in the other original petition, no
objection has been filed by the petitioner.
178
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
52. In Kasaragod District Bus Owners Association
[1990 (2) KLT 830] the learned Single Judge held that the
absence of knowledge of the draft publication by a particular
operator is immaterial. What is required under the Act is to publish
the scheme of nationalisation in the official gazette as well as in a
newspaper in the regional language circulating in the area or the
route proposed to be covered. There is no requirement that
individual notice should be given. Therefore, the knowledge of any
particular person or operator is immaterial. The requirement is
only publication in the manner prescribed, in the gazette and in a
daily having circulation in the area covered by the route proposed
to be nationalised. Therefore, the absence of knowledge of the
publication in the official gazette by any particular operator is
immaterial.
53. In Kasaragod District Bus Owners Association
[1990 (2) KLT 830] the learned Single Judge held that the
purpose of nationalisation is to bring into an efficient, adequate,
economical and properly co-ordinated passenger road transport
service between two termini. Any inconvenience caused to the
passengers performing a journey between the other points and
179
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
the distance cannot afford a ground for challenging the scheme as
invalid. It is the duty of the State Transport Undertaking to arrange
its service on the nationalised routes so that those through
passengers are subjected to the least inconvenience. The
arguments of inconvenience to the public because of the
nationalisation is not a ground for invalidation. It has been so held
in the decision reported in Viswanatha Rao v. State [AIR 1968
Mysore 104] and the learned Single Judge was in respectful
agreement of the same. If there is no co-ordinated service, or if
there are difficulties to the public because of uncoordinated service,
it can be remedied by subsequent modification as provided in
Section 103 of the Motor Vehicles Act or by proper time schedule.
54. As already noticed hereinbefore, the judgment of the
learned Single Judge in Kasaragod District Bus Owners
Association [1990 (2) KLT 830], which is relied on by the
learned Senior Counsel for KSRTC and the learned Special
Government Pleader, in order to contend that the writ petitioners
and other operators are not legally entitled to individual notice in
respect of Ext.P9 notification dated 14.09.2020, is one rendered
in the context of Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with
180
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
Rule 236 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, which prescribes the
manner of notifying the proposed scheme. The law laid down in
the said decision has no application in respect of the said
notification, which is one issued under sub-section (1) of Section
102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with Rule 246 of the Kerala
Motor Vehicles Rules, for modification of an approved scheme. In
view of the provisions contained in clause (a) of Rule 246 any
private operator who is likely to be affected by the proposed
modification is entitled to an individual notice, along with a copy
of the scheme. Such a notice is in addition to the publication of
the proposal in the official gazette and in one daily newspaper in
the regional language, circulating in the area involved. Such a
provision for individual notice is conspicuously absent in Rule 236
of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, which deals with the manner
of notifying the proposed scheme. In such circumstances, we hold
that in the absence of individual notices to the private operators
likely to be affected by the proposed modification in Ext.P9
notification dated 14.09.2020 vitiates the entire exercise
undertaken by the State Government pursuant to that notification,
which cannot be sustained in law. The State Government, if it so
181
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
desires, has to issue a fresh notification under sub-section (1) of
Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for modifying the notified
scheme in Ext.P2.
55. It is an admitted fact that Ext.P9 notification dated
14.09.2020, which is one issued under sub-section (1) of Section
102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with Rule 246 of the Kerala
Motor Vehicles Rules, did not specify the date, time and the place
at which any representation received in terms of that notification
will be heard by the State Government. The argument of the
learned Senior Counsel for KSRTC and the learned Special
Government Pleader is that Ext.P9 notification dated 14.09.2020
was published at a time when there were restrictions due to the
spread of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Central Government, as
well as the State Government, issued various guidelines from
26.03.2020 onwards, under the provisions of the Disaster
Management Act, 2005 for the containment of the Covid-19
pandemic. At the time of issuance of Ext.P9 notification such
guidelines were in force, as per which all public outdoor gatherings
with more than 20 people and indoor events with more than 10
people were banned. In view of the provisions contained in the
182
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
Disaster Management Act, the orders issued under the provisions
of the said Act are having an overriding effect upon other
provisions of law.
56. The provisions under the Disaster Management Act,
2005 or the restrictions imposed, due to the spread of the Covid-
19 pandemic, vide the guidelines issued by the Central
Government as well as the State Government from 26.03.2020
onwards, would not enable the State Government to issue Ext.P9
notification dated 14.09.2020, without mentioning anything about
the requirement under sub-section (2) of Section 102 of the Motor
Vehicles Act regarding the consideration of the representations
received pursuant to the said notification, with an opportunity of
being heard. In view of the restrictions imposed due to the spread
of the Covid-19 pandemic, the State Government could have even
mentioned in Ext.P9 notification that the date, time and place at
which any representation received will be heard by the State
Government will be notified by way of a separate notification. 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 Ext.P9 notification does not
183
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
satisfy the statutory requirements and as such Ext.P14 final
notification cannot be said to be in accordance with the law.
57. In Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union
[(1971) 1 All ER 1148] Lord Denning, M.R. Observed that, the
giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good
administration. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v.
Crabtree [1974 ICR 120] it was observed that, failure to give
reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links
between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in
question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.
58. In Commissioner of Police, Bombay v.
Gordhandas Bhanji [AIR 1952 SC 16] the Apex Court has held
that public orders publicly made, in the exercise of a statutory
authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations
subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he
meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do.
Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public
effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those
to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively
with reference to the language used in the order itself.
184
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
59. Following the principle laid down in Gordhandas
Bhanji [AIR 1952 SC 16] the Apex Court has reiterated in
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [(1978)
1 SCC 405] that, when a statutory functionary makes an order
based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the
reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh
reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order
bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account
of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought
out.
60. Following the principle laid down in the decisions
referred to above, the Apex Court in Chairman and Managing
Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar [(2003) 4
SCC 364] held that, reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity.
The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals
the ‘inscrutable face of the sphinx’, it can, by its silence, render it
virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate
function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the
validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of
a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected
185
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the
salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for
the order made, in other words, speaking out. The ‘inscrutable
face of a sphinx’ is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-
judicial performance.
61. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has laid down
in Krishna Swami v. Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 605] that,
undoubtedly, in a parliamentary democracy governed by the rule
of law, any action, decision or order of any statutory/public
authority/functionary must be founded upon reasons stated in the
order or staring from the record. Reasons are the links between
the material, the foundation for their erection and the actual
conclusions. They would also demonstrate how the mind of the
maker was activated and actuated and their rational nexus and
synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusions reached.
Lest it would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violating Article 14 or
unfair procedure offending Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
62. In B.A. Linga Reddy v. Karnataka State Transport
Authority [(2015) 4 SCC 515], the Apex Court, after referring
to its earlier judgments on the subject, reiterated that the rule of
186
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
reason is anti-thesis to arbitrariness in action and is a necessary
concomitant of the principles of natural justice. If a statutory or
public authority/ functionary does not record the reasons, its
decision would be rendered arbitrary, unfair, unjust and violating
Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is the duty
of such authority/functionary to give reasons and to pass a
speaking order that excludes arbitrariness in action. Referring to
the facts of that case, the Apex Court noticed that there is no
consideration of the objections except mentioning the arguments
of the rival parties and that objections, both factual and legal have
not been considered, much less reasons assigned to overrule them.
63. In National Highways Authority of India v.
Madhukar Kumar [(2022) 14 SCC 661] a Two-Judge Bench of
the Apex Court was dealing with an appeal arising out of the
judgment of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in
L.P.A.No.388 of 2015. The said appeal arises out of the judgment
of a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5643 of 2012. The relief
sought in that writ petition was to restrain the construction of a
toll plaza at 194km of NH-30 in the four-laning of Patna-
Bakhtiyarpur Section, in violation of Rule 8 of the National
187
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008.
In the writ petition, it was contended that the National Highways
Authority of India (NHAI) had not assigned any reason for
establishing the toll plaza within the Municipal area. Further, the
establishment of the toll plaza at its present location will cause
great difficulties to the residents of the locality because they will
have to cross the toll plaza on many occasions in a day, and on all
occasions, they will be liable to pay the toll.
64. In Madhukar Kumar [(2022) 14 SCC 661], on the
duty to give reasons, the Apex Court noticed that an
administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial power
must record reasons for its decision. This is subject to the
exception where the requirement has been expressly or by
necessary implication done away with. In S.N. Mukherjee v.
Union of India [(1990) 4 SCC 594] the Constitution Bench
surveyed the entire case law in this regard and held that except in
cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly
or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons.
The Constitution Bench held further that recording of reasons
188
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
excludes the chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of
fairness in the process of decision-making. The said principle
would apply equally to all decisions and its applications cannot be
confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or
judicial review. It is not required that the reasons should be as
elaborate as in the decision of a court of law. The extent and
nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and
circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and
explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due
consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording
of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the
original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms
such an order, need not give separate reasons. If the appellate or
revisional authority disagrees, the reasons must be contained in
the order under challenge. Thus, it is settled law that the reasons
are harbinger between the mind of the maker of the order to the
controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.
It also excludes the chances to reach arbitrary, whimsical or
capricious decisions or conclusions. The reasons assure an inbuilt
support for the conclusion/decision reached. The order when it
189
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
affects the right of a citizen or a person, irrespective of the fact,
whether it is quasi-judicial or administrative, fair play requires
recording of germane and relevant precise reasons. The recording
of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned
consciously applied its mind to the facts on record. It also aids the
appellate or revisional authority or the jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 226 or the appellate jurisdiction of the Apex
Court under Article 136 to see whether the authority concerned
acted fairly and justly to mete out justice to the aggrieved person.
The applicability of the principles of natural justice is not a rule of
thumb or a straitjacket formula as an abstract proposition of law.
It depends on the facts of the case, the nature of the inquiry and
the effect of the order/decision on the rights of the person and
attendant circumstances.
65. In Madhukar Kumar [(2022) 14 SCC 661], the
Apex Court noticed that in Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development
Authority [(2022) 11 SCC 1], which arose in the context of the
decision taken to construct a new Parliament building and certain
other structures, while dealing with the question relating to non-
application of mind, the Court has also dealt with the impact of
190
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
there being no reasons, wherein it was noticed that the rules of
natural justice are not embodied rules. They are means to an end
and not end in themselves. The goal of these principles is to
prevent prejudice. It is from the same source that the requirement
of application of mind emerges in decision-making process as it
ensures objectivity in decision-making. In order to ascertain that
due application of mind has taken place in a decision, the presence
of reasons on record plays a crucial role. The presence of reasons
would fulfil the twin objectives of revealing an objective application
of mind and assisting the adjudicatory body in reviewing the
decision.
66. In Rajeev Suri [(2022) 11 SCC 1], the question that
arose for consideration before the Apex Court was whether the
statement in the recorded minutes of the Central Vista Committee
(CVC) meeting “the features of the proposed Parliament building
should be in sync with the existing Parliament building” is or is not
indicative of an application of mind. The Apex Court noticed that,
in cases when the statute itself provides for an express
requirement of a reasoned order, it is understandable that the
absence of reasons would be a violation of a legal requirement and
191
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
thus, illegal. However, in cases when there is no express
requirement of reasons, the ulterior effect of the absence of
reasons on the final decision cannot be sealed in a straight-
jacketed manner. Such cases need to be examined from a broad
perspective in the light of overall circumstances. The Court would
look at the nature of the decision-making body, the nature of
rights involved, stakeholders, the form and substance of the
decision, etc. The list is not exhaustive for the simple reason that
drawing a conclusion of non-application of mind from mere
absence of reasons is a matter of pure inference and the same
cannot be drawn until and unless other circumstances too point in
the same direction. Thereafter, the Apex Court, relying on the
decision in Union of India v. E.G. Nambudiri [(1991) 3 SCC
38], held that had it been a case of any other administrative
committee required to adjudicate upon the rights of individuals,
merely because it is not mandatory to record reasons would not
absolve it of the requirement of objective consideration of the
proposal. The ultimate enquiry is of application of mind and a
reasoned order is merely one element in that enquiry. In a given
case, the Court can still advert to other elements of the decision-
192
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
making process to weigh the factum of application of mind. The
test to be applied in such a case would be of a reasonable link
between the material placed before the decision-making body and
the conclusion reached in consideration thereof. The Court may
decide in the context of the overall circumstances of the case, and
a sole element (of no reasons or lack of elaborate reasons) cannot
be enough to make or break the decision as long as the judicial
mind is convinced of substantial application of mind from other
circumstances. Even in common law jurisprudence, there is no
absolute requirement of reasoned order in all decisions.
67. In Rajeev Suri [(2022) 11 SCC 1], the Apex Court
noticed the decision of the House of Lords in R. v. Secretary of
State for Trade and Industry [(1989) 2 All ER 609)], wherein
it was contended that the decision is not based on convincing
reasons and therefore, must be declared as illegal. The House of
Lords refused to entertain this contention and noted that the mere
absence of reasons would not render the decision irrational. Lord
Keith, in his opinion, noted that the only significance of the
absence of reasons would be that if circumstances overwhelmingly
point towards a different conclusion than the one reached by the
193
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
body, it would be fatal. The absence of reasons for a decision
where there is no duty to give them cannot of itself provide any
support for the suggested irrationality of the decision. The only
significance of the absence of reasons is that if all other known
facts and circumstances appear to point overwhelmingly in favour
of a different decision, the decision-maker who has given no
reasons cannot complain if the court draws the inference that he
had no rational reason for his decision.
68. In Rajeev Suri [(2022) 11 SCC 1], the Apex Court
noticed the decisions in Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi
[(1991) 2 SCC 716] and Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. v. Shibban
Lal Saxena [(1975) 2 SCC 818], wherein it was held that if the
function/decision of the Government is administrative, in law,
ordinarily there is no requirement to be accompanied by a
statement of reasons, unless there is an express statutory
requirement in that regard. Again, in Sarat Kumar Dash v.
Biswajit Patnaik [(1995) Supp.1 SCC 434], it was observed
that, in the field of administrative action, reasons are the link
between the maker of the order or the author of the decision and
194
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
the order itself. The record can be called to consider whether the
author had given due consideration to the facts placed before him
before he arrived at the decision. Therefore, the requirement of
reasons in cases which do not demand it in an express manner is
based on desirability, and the same is advised to the extent
possible without impinging upon the character of the decision-
making body and the needs of administrative efficiency.
69. In Madhukar Kumar [(2022) 14 SCC 661], the
Apex Court held that as noticed by the Three-Judge Bench in
Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. [(1975) 2 SCC 818], there is no
general duty, when an administrative decision is taken, to give
reasons. A statute may, however, explicitly provide that the
executive authority must provide reasons and it must be recorded
in writing. A case in point is the first proviso to Rule 8 of the
National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection)
Rules, 2008 itself. The desirability of a general duty, in the case of
administrative action, to support decisions with reason, is open to
question. One of the most important reasons is the burden it would
put on the administration. Administrative decisions are made in a
wide spectrum of situations and contexts. The executive power of
195
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
the Union and States are provided in Articles 73 and 162 of the
Constitution of India, respectively. Undoubtedly, in India, every
State action must be fair, failing which, it will fall foul of the
mandate of Article 14. The duty to give reasons would arise even
in the case of administrative action, where legal rights are at stake
and the administrative action adversely affects legal rights. There
may be something in the nature or the context under which the
administrative action is taken, which may necessitate the
authority being forthcoming with rational reasons. There are other
decisions, which essentially belong more to the realm of executive
policy-making, which ordinarily may not require the furnishing of
reasons.
70. In Madhukar Kumar [(2022) 14 SCC 661], the
Apex Court noticed the advantages, undoubtedly, of introducing a
reasons-driven regime. Persons, who may have a right or an
interest, would know, what are the reasons which impelled the
administrator to take a particular decision. Judicial review in India,
which encompasses the wide contours of public interest litigation
as well, would receive immeasurable assistance if the reasons for
particular decisions were articulated to the extent possible. The
196
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
giving of reasons also has a disciplining effect on the administrator.
This is for the reason that the reasons would capture the thought
process, which culminated in the decision, and it would help the
administrator steer clear of the vices of illegality, irrationality and
also disproportionality. Reasons could help to establish the
application of mind. Conversely, the absence of reasons may
unerringly point to non-application of mind. The duty to act fairly
may require reasons to be recorded but the said duty, though
there is a general duty on all State players to act fairly, may have
its underpinnings, ultimately in legal rights.
71. In Madhukar Kumar [(2022) 14 SCC 661], the
Apex Court noticed that it is one thing to say that there should be
reasons, which persuaded the administrator to take a particular
decision and a different thing to find that the reasons must be
incorporated in a decision. The question relating to the duty to
communicate such a decision would arise for consideration in
different situations, having regard to the impact, which it, in law,
produces. On the facts of the case on hand, the Apex Court noticed
that the second proviso to Rule 17 of the National Highways Fee
(Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 provides not
197
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
only for there being reasons but also the reasons for refusal to
permit barricades must be communicated. If the law provides for
a duty to record reasons in writing, undoubtedly, it must be
followed, and it would amount to a violation of the statute, if it
were not followed. Even if there is no duty to record reasons or
support the order with reasons, there cannot be any doubt that,
for every decision, there would be and there must be, a reason.
The Constitution does not contemplate any public authority,
exercising power with caprice or without any rationale. But here
again, in the absence of the duty to record reasons, the Court is
not to be clothed with the power to strike down administrative
action for the mere reason that no reasons are to be found
recorded. In certain situations, the reason for a particular decision
may be gleaned from the pleadings of the authority, when the
matter is tested in a court. From the materials, including the file
noting, which are made available, the Court may conclude that
there were reasons and the action was not illegal or arbitrary.
From admitted facts, the Court may conclude that there was
sufficient justification, and the mere absence of reasons, would
not be sufficient to invalidate the action of the public authority.
198
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
Thus, reasons may, in certain situations, have to be recorded in
the order. In other contexts, it would suffice that the reasons are
to be found in the files. The Court may, when there is no duty to
record reasons, support an administrative decision, with reference
to the pleadings aided by materials.
72. The learned Senior Counsel for KSRTC and the learned
Special Government Pleader for the State would place reliance on
the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in H.C.
Narayanappa v. State of Mysore [AIR 1960 SC 1073] in order
to contend that the procedure adopted by the State while
publishing Ext.P14 notification is not in violation of the principles
of natural justice. On the aforesaid argument advanced by the
learned Special Government Pleader and also the learned Senior
Counsel for KSRTC, the learned Senior Counsel for the party
respondents in W.A.No.1821 of 2024 would point out that the
judgment of the Apex Court in B.A. Linga Reddy v. Karnataka
State Transport Authority [(2015) 4 SCC 515] is one
rendered after taking note of the law laid down by the Constitution
Bench in the said decision.
199
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
73. On the contentions raised on the question of violation
of principles of natural justice, relying on the judgment of the Apex
Court in H.C. Narayanappa [AIR 1960 SC 1073], we notice
that the principle that can be culled out from the said decision is
that the Government on whom the duty to decide the dispute rests
is substantially a party to the dispute but if the Government or the
authority to whom the power is delegated acts judicially in
approving or modifying the scheme, the approval or modification
is not open to challenge on a presumption of bias. In the said
decision, the Constitution Bench noticed that the guarantee
conferred by Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV
of 1939) upon persons likely to be affected by the intended
scheme is a guarantee of an opportunity to put forth their
objections and to make representations to the State Government
against the acceptance of the scheme. This opportunity of making
representations and of being heard in support thereof may be
regarded as real only if in the consideration of the objections,
there is a judicial approach. But the legislature does not
contemplate an appeal to the Supreme Court against the order
passed by the State Government approving or modifying the
200
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
scheme. Provided the authority invested with the power to
consider the objections gives an opportunity to the objectors to be
heard in the matter and deals with the objections in the light of
the object intended to be secured by the scheme, the ultimate
order passed by that authority is not open to challenge either on
the ground that another view may possibly have been taken on
the objections or that detailed reasons have not been given for
upholding or rejecting the contentions raised by the objectors.
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
201
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
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
202
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
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.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
Drgn/MIN/AV
203
W.A.No.1821 of 2024 and conn. cases. 2025:KER:23448
APPENDIX OF WA 1909/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P3 CLEAR COPY OF EXHIBIT P3