1. Petitioner KSRTC is aggrieved with Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal.
The issue agitated before the Tribunal was with respect to a grant of permit to the third respondent. Admittedly, even going by Ext.P1 order, there was an objection as to overlap of the notified scheme. The total route length was 30 kms. and the overlap was 1.9 to 2 kms. Learned counsel for the KSRTC would submit that, in fact, the overlap was much more than that. The Tribunal also found that overlap was more than permissible, since in a route of 30 kms., overlap would be permitted only for 1.5 kms. However, the Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Karnataka High Court held that such a nominal overlap should be treated as 'inevitable intersection' and confirmed the order of RTA.
2. The learned standing counsel for the KSRTC would place before me W.P.(C)No.25878 of 2010 -:2:-
a decision of this Court; Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v.
Regional Transport Authority (2013 (2) KLT 280) wherein it was held that there can be no overlap permitted beyond the limit prescribed on the ground that it is an 'inevitable intersection'.
3. Since the matter is pending, with a stay granted to the third respondent, the RTA shall consider afresh the issue, after issuing notice to the third respondent, keeping in mind the binding precedent referred to above. The order of the Tribunal, Ext.P1, is set aside. The KSRTC shall produce a copy of this writ petition before the RTA. The RTA shall issue notice to the third respondent and decide the issue within a period of two months. The third respondent shall be allowed to continue his operation as permitted by the Tribunal, till orders are passed by the RTA.
Writ petition is disposed off.
K. Vinod Chandran, Judge.
sl.