The petitioner claims to be a student, who is associated with a Students Union and seeks to agitate the cause of students before this Court, insofar as the concession granted to them in KSRTC Buses are considered. The petitioner refers to Ext.P1 notification issued by the Government which has laid down the guidelines for concession as also the rates. Ext.P1, in fact directs the concession to be availed by the students as laid down in Ext.P2 Government order. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as the private bus operators are concerned, the Students Travel Facility Committee issues identity cards to the students, as applied for by the Head of the Institution and such students are permitted to avail concession facility as and when they travel, on production of the identity cards. With respect to the KSRTC, the system followed is issuance of pre- paid cards, for a minimum period of one month and maximum period of three months.
3. The first allegation is that Ext.P4 issued by the KSRTC is without jurisdiction, since they are regulated by the Government orders. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, however, refers to Section 19(1)(d) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, wherein the Corporation itself has been given power to impose conditions for granting concessional rates of fare. The grievance of the petitioner is also against the concession being granted only in ordinary buses. However, the same has been considered by another single Judge in W.P(C) Nos. 31136/2009 & 31149/2009 and has been answered in Paragraph 3, which is extracted hereunder:-
“Admittedly, the Motor Vehicles Act does not provide for students' concession. Students' concession is given by the KSRTC as per circulars and orders issued by the Corporation. When they prescribe certain conditions for granting such concession, the recipient of that concession cannot challenge the conditions with reference to the Motor Vehicles Act insofar as the Motor Vehicles Act does not provide for students' concession. Petitioners have to avail of students' concession in accordance with orders by which students' concession has been granted insofar as their right for students' concession arises only from those orders. They have to avail of the concession with the conditions and they cannot challenge the conditions prescribed for availing of the concession. Therefore I do not find any merit in these writ petitions and accordingly these writ petitions are dismissed.”
This Court is of respectful agreement to that view. That contention hence would not be up for consideration.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to a paper report, at Ext.P5, which indicates that for reason only of shortage of concession cards, it is declined to certain students. If any student is faced with such a situation, by which he/she is declined of the concession, on submitting an application before the concerned authority; the student could definitely bring it to the notice of the District Transport Officer. The District Transport Officer shall definitely be competent to look into the matter and ensure that sufficient cards are provided, to ensure that no eligible student, recommended by the Head of the Institution, who is entitled to concession, as per the Government Orders; is denied of the same.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner specifically contend that the Corporation cannot water down the terms of the notification issued at Exts.P1 and P2. The specific argument is with respect to restriction of concession to ordinary services alone; where as the private stage carriage operators are obliged to grant concession in ordinary buses and limited stop buses. That, however, is not a contention, which is raised in support of the grievance of the students, but in support of the objections of the private bus operators.
6. In any event, the Corporation though had adopted the Government Order it cannot at all be said that the Corporation does not have the power to specify conditions to grant concession. It is the Corporation which has been granted the power to specify conditions to grant concession as per the statute above referred.
7. With respect to the jurisdiction of the KSRTC, as was noticed in the judgment, concessions are granted as per the Government Orders and the fares also, are prescribed by the Government Order. The Government orders merely bring forth the policy of the Government and are not for mandatory compliance. The adoption of such regulations by the KSRTC cannot lead to an inference that the Corporation cannot provide for conditions for availing of the concessions, decided upon, by the Government for the benefit of the student community.
Writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and is closed with the above observations.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge