Karnataka High Court
Ummer Khayum Khan vs Regional Transport Authority Kolar on 18 June, 2012
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.No.26908/2005
C/w
W.P.No.1117/2006 (MV)
IN W.P.No.26908/2005:
BETWEEN:
1. Ummer Khayum Khan,
S/o late Ayub Khan
Aged about 43 years,
K.R.Extension, Chintamani.
2. Ghouse Khan,
S/o late M.Ayub Khan
Aged about 41 years,
K.R.Extension, Chintamani.
3. Smt.Meher,
D/o Basha Sab,
Aged about 36 years,
K.R.Extension,
Chintamani. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri B.R.Sundaraja Gupta, Adv.)
AND:
1. Regional Transport Authority,
Kolar,
By its Secretary.
2. Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation, Central Offices,
Kengal Hanumanthaiah Road,
2
Bangalore-27,
Rep.by its Managing Director. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri K.Nagaraj, Adv. for R2,
Sri K.Vedamurthy, G.P. for R1)
IN W.P.No.1117/2006:
BETWEEN:
Mohiuddin Shariff,
S/o Hyder Shariff,
Aged about 32 years,
Prop. HSMS Bus Service,
Rajaji Road, Srinivaspura,
Kolar. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri B.R.Shilendra & Sri S.Shivananjappa, Advs.)
AND:
1. Regional Transport Authority,
Kolar,
2. The Managing Director,
Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation,
Double Road, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore-27. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri K.Nagaraj, Adv. for R2,
Sri K.Vedamurthy, G.P. for R1)
W.P.No.26908/2005 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order of the
KSTAT passed in Revision Petitions No.675/2005, 679/2005
and 683/2005 dated 13.12.2005 vide Annexure-G and etc.
W.P.No.1117/2006 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order of the
KSTAT passed in Revision Petition No.684/2005 dated
13.12.2005 vide Annexure-C and etc.
3
These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing-B
group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
1. Petitioners in these two writ petitions are aggrieved by the common order dated 13.12.2005 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, allowing the revision petitions filed by respondent No.2 - KSRTC.
2. By the said order, the Tribunal has set aside the resolutions passed by the Regional Transport Authority in the matter of grant of fresh stage carriage permits in favour of the petitioners on the route Srinivasapur to Chintamani.
3. The grievance made in the Revision Petition was that grant of fresh stage carriage permit in favour of the petitioners overlapped Kolar Pocket Scheme at certain stretches. The Tribunal after noticing the overlapping on the notified route, has recorded the following findings in paragraph 17A.
"In view of nature of the joint route survey report submitted by Inspector of Motor Vehicles, RTO, Kolar dated 19.05.2004, it is not known as to how respondent No.1 could have by-passed the ruling of the Apex Court in Ashrafulla Khan's case rendered on 14.02.2002. Since, the records of RTA indicate that the grant of fresh permits, in question are evidently after coming into force 4 of modified Kolar Pocket Scheme dated 07.11.2003 and since joint route survey report indicate overlapping the notified routes of Kolar Pocket Scheme atleast at two stretches, I am of the opinion that the impugned resolutions of RTA are bad in law and liable to be set aside."
4. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the Tribunal has not applied its mind to the observations made in paragraph 24 of the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of KARNATKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS ASHRAFULLA KHAN & OTHERS - AIR 2002 SC
629. It is urged by the Counsel for the petitioners that there is no overlapping on the notified routes nor is there any intersection, but it is a case where the route crosses the notified route at some places in a remote village.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent strongly refutes these contentions and supports the order passed.
6. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire materials on record, I find that the Apex Court in the judgment referred to above at paragraph 24, has observed that there might be a crossing of a notified route where there is an island in the centre and a private operator in 5 order to go from non-notified route to another non-notified route has to make a semi circle of a notified route. In that case also, it would not be overlapping but would be an intersection because it only cuts across the notified route because of size of crossing or traffic regulations.
7. In the instant case, the Inspector of Motor Vehicles attached to the RTO, Kolar, has opined that it was only a case of crossing the notified route to an extent of 0.1 Km. The Tribunal ought to have applied its mind to the nature of the intersection and found out whether there is any intersection overlapping or is it only a crossing cutting across the notified route. Such an exercise is not undertaken by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has simply observed that the ruling of the Apex Court has been by-passed by the RTA while granting the fresh permit.
8. Therefore, in my considered view, the Tribunal has to re- hear the matter, apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and then come to a conclusion in the light of the observation made by the Apex Court in the judgment of Ashrafulla Kha's case, particularly in paragraph 24. 6
9. Hence, these writ petitions are allowed in part. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE KK