Karnataka High Court
K.B. Vittal Rai vs The State Transport Authority on 5 April, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2017 (2) AKR 592
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
W.P.Nos.25243 - 25247/2015 c/w
W.P.Nos.26263 - 26264/2015 (MV)
IN W.P.Nos.25243 - 25247/2015:
BETWEEN :
1. K.B. VITTAL RAI
S/O BHANDARI RAI, AGE 56 YEARS,
VIJAYALAKSHMI NIVAS
KADIRI KAMBLA, NEW ROAD,
MANGALURU-575004
2. SRI NELSON PEREIRA
S/O LATE D.M.G. PEREIRA
AGE 58 YEARS, NO.25-14-863,
FERROR COLONY, VALENCIA,
MANGALURU-575002
3. Smt.E.PEREIRA
W/O NELSON PEREIRA
AGE 52 YEARS, NO.25-14-863,
FERROR COLONY, VALENCIA,
MANGALURU-575002
4. Smt.SHAILINI R. JAIN
W/O RATHNAKAR JAIN,
AGE 48 YEARS, UPASANA,
KADRI TEMPLE ROAD,
MANGALURU-575004
5. SRI GOPALA KRISHNA SHETTY
S/O BHASKARA SHETTY,
AGE 58 YEARS,
VINAYADURGA NIVAS,
-2-
THALAPADY,
MANGALURU-575004 ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M.E.NAGESH, ADV.)
AND :
1. THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
BMTC BUILDING, K.H. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560027
BY ITS SECRETARY
2. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560027
BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. KERALA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
TRIVENDRAM,
KERALA STATE-695014,
BY ITS SECRETARY. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR Y.H., AGA FOR R-1;
SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADV. FOR R-2;
SRI HAREESH BHANDARY A/W SRI P.C.CHACKO, ADVS.
FOR R-2 & R-3.)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU
PASSED IN R.P.Nos.40, 43, 46, 47 AND 48/2014 DATED
05.05.2015 AS PER ANNEXURE-E.
IN W.P.Nos.26263 - 26264/2015:
BETWEEN :
K.B. BALA KRISHNA RAI
S/O BHANDARI RAI,
AGE 62 YEARS,
NAVDURGAPRASAD,
-3-
KANNUR, M.B. ROAD,
MANGALURU-575004 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI THAMPAN THAMSON & SRI N.SHANTHAKUMAR, ADVS.)
AND :
1. THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
BMTC BUILDING, K.H. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560027
BY ITS SECRETARY
2. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560027
3. KERALA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
TRIVENDRAM,
KERALA STATE-760018,
BY ITS SECRETARY. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR Y.H., AGA FOR R-1;
SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADV. FOR R-2;
SRI HAREESH BHANDARY A/W SRI P.C.CHACKO, ADVS.
FOR R-2 & R-3.)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU
PASSED IN R.P.Nos.44/2014 AND 45/2014 DATED 05.05.2015
AS PER ANNEXURE-E.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 20.03.2017, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J., MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
ORDER
Since these petitions involve a common question, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment.
The facts in brief are: the petitioners have been granted inter-state stage carriage permits in the year 1992-93 for the route between Mangalore and Kasargod. The permits were continuously renewed. It transpires that STA-respondent No.1 had issued notices on the ground, there must be an agreement between two States recognizing the permits. The matter was deferred to consider the same at the time of renewal of permits. The High Court of Kerala in W.P. (C) No.8773/2013 & connected cases has set-aside Sub- clauses (1)(a) and (1) (b) of clause 1 of the 4th supplementary inter-state agreement entered into -5- between the States of Kerala and Karnataka and has held that the operators, operating the entire route as specified in Sl.No.11 of Appendix-III or Sl.No.7 of Appendix-V were entitled for renewal, if not, the authorities and State Transport Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal', for short) were justified in rejecting their claim. It is contended that the State Transport Authority (STA), Bangalore, in view of the Judgment of the High Court of Kerala has placed renewal applications of the petitioners in the meeting. The 2nd respondent-KSRTC filed W.P.No.58253/2013 to quash the meeting notice. This Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the applications will have to be considered in accordance with law keeping in view of the interim order passed in Writ Appeal No1925/2013. The STA, Bangalore having considered the matter, allowed the renewal applications and permits are renewed and also endorsed in the permit. Aggrieved, the 2nd respondent filed a Revision Petition before the -6- Tribunal. The Tribunal has set-aside the renewal of permits on the ground that Kerala Authority has not countersigned for the renewal of permits granted by the STA, Bangalore. Hence these petitions.
2. Learned counsel Sri.Thampan Thomson, appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.26263- 26264/2105 contended that the order of the learned Single Judge of High Court of Kerala makes it clear that Sub-clauses (1)(a) and (1)(b) of clause 1 of the 4th supplementary inter-state agreement is ultra vires of the Act and unconstitutional. All the stage carriage operators including STUs are entitled to apply for the permit or seek renewal of their permits, if their routes are covered by the inter-state agreements. Hence, renewal made by the STA, Bangalore, is in accordance with the Judgment of the High Court of Kerala. The learned counsel submitted that the permits are covered in the inter-state agreement of 1976, but the Appellate -7- Tribunal without applying its mind has set-aside the renewal made in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the two factors viz., name of the route and trip of the permit are relevant to analyze whether the permits granted to the petitioners were saved under the 1976 agreement entered into between the State of Kerala and State of Karnataka. Petitioners are operating the services with the valid permit from 1992 up to 2013. Placing reliance on Section 88(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short), it was submitted that a permit granted or countersigned by the State Transport Authority shall be valid in the whole State or in such regions within the State as may be specified in the permit notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Section (1) of Section 88. Learned counsel further placing reliance on Section 88(5) and (6) of the Act contended that the Judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala was carried in Appeal by the State Transport Undertakings -8- of Karnataka and Kerala and the same came to be dismissed. Further the same was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court which came to be dismissed. Thus, the order of the learned Single Judge of High Court of Kerala is confirmed. Learned counsel submitted that the route as well as trip of the permit are covered and saved under Sl.No.11 of Appendix-III or Sl.No.7 of Appendix-V of the agreement.
3. Learned counsel contended that according to Section 2(38) of the Act 'route' means a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another. The route/line of travel mentioned in the regular permits of the petitioners and the route/line of travel mentioned in the item No.7 of Appendix-V of the 1976 agreement are one and the same. Therefore, the routes covering Mangalore to Kasargod on which the petitioners were operating is covered by 1976 inter-state agreement and -9- hence, valid and to be renewed. The minimum and maximum trips for permit were also mentioned in Item No.7 of Appendix-V for joint operation of operators registered from States of Kerala and Karnataka. The number of permits to be issued in different region is to be decided by the State Transport Authorities and not by the State Government. The statement, object and reasons given in Chapter I of the Act, more appropriately clause (e) of Section 3 specifies simplification of procedure and policy liberalizations for private sector operations in the road transport field. Similarly clause (g) of Section 5 provides liberalized schemes for grant of stage carriage permits on non- nationalised routes. Hence, the intention of the legislature was to simplify and liberalise the matters relating to private sector operations and stage carriage permits on non-nationalized routes rather than excluding private operators by executing inter-sate agreements.
- 10 -
4. It was further contended that the High Court of Kerala was pleased to appoint an Advocate Commissioner on 5.4.2013 in W.P.(C) No.8210/2013 to study and report the difficulties in much as of the travelling public, for the purpose of issuing of permits, on the route covering Mangalore-Kasargod. After an elaborate study, the Advocate Commissioner had reported that 18 more stage carriages from both the State Transport Undertakings and private operators are required on the route covering Mangalore to Kasargod to cater to the increased need of the travelling public.
5. The Karnataka State Transport Authority has provided the information under the RTI Act, 2005. According to the said letter, STA proceedings are required to grant, issue, countersign, vary and renew permits to the KSTRC and delegated power of the Secretary, STA, may be used if the route is covered under the reciprocal inter-state agreement between the
- 11 -
two States. Earlier several private and STU stage carriages were operating on the route/line of travel between Mangalore and Kasargod, which is measured by the 1976 agreement but many of the operators including STUs had defaulted their services and hence permits have to be issued for this route/line of travel on reciprocal basis to private operators on payment of double point tax which was within the purview of 1976 inter-state agreement. The condition in 'Clause-VI - Taxation' of 1976 inter-state agreement regarding taxation is that benefit of single point tax shall apply only if the vehicles have regular countersignature of permits on single point taxation. Otherwise, the reciprocating State can levy tax on the permit on double point taxation. The petitioners came into operation of state carriages on this route by valid permits on double point tax basis, which are periodically renewed. In W.P.No.13211/2008 filed by some of the private operators, it was held that private operators are to be
- 12 -
considered on par with the State transport undertakings, however, recently Kerala government has published in the gazette a Scheme vide Notification No.G.O.(P) No.01/2016/ Tran dated 13.1.2016 in relation to Kasargod-Thalappady route (36 Kms) with some modification on the draft Scheme published earlier, with a malafide intention to circumvent the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C) No.8210/2013 and 8773/2013 and the decision of the Division Bench in W.A. Nos.1925/2013 and connected matters and also the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.34247/2015. The above scheme between Kasargod and Tahalapady was challenged by the petitioners in W.P.C No.6198/2016 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and the High Court was pleased to stay the said Scheme vide interim order dated 19.2.2016. Other private operators have also challenged the interim order of stay and the said writ petitions are pending.
- 13 -
6. The agreement of the year 1963 was the subject matter of Writ Petition before this Court in the case of Smt.Sulochana Damodhar -v- The State Transport Authority reported in 2009 (4) KCCR 2479 (DB), wherein considering the mileage vacancy aspect this Court held that the operators therein are not entitled for renewal of permits. The said Judgment has no applicability to the facts of the present case.
7. Learned counsel placed reliance on the following Judgments:
i) Ajantha Transports (P) Ltd. and others -v-
M/s T.V.K.Transports, Pulampatti and others (AIR 1975 SC 123)
ii) Adarsh Travels Bus Service and Another -v-
State of U.P. and others (1985)(4) SCC 557;
iii) G.T.Venkataswamy Reddy -v- State of Mysore and others (1966)(1) Mys.LJ 542;
- 14 -
iv) K.Balasubramania Chetty -v-
N.M.Sambandamoorthy Chetty (AIR 1975 SC
818)
8. Learned counsel Sri.M.E.Nagesh supporting the arguments advanced at the hands of the learned counsel Sri. Thampan Thomson would contend that the inter-state agreement is entered into between the two States of Karnataka and Kerala and the inter-state permit granted to the petitioners is under Chapter V of the Act. Chapter VI of the Act provides special provisions relating to State Transport Undertakings which has the overriding effect but not Chapter V. The learned counsel placing reliance on Section 88 (1) and (2) of the Act submitted that a permit granted or countersigned by a State Transport Authority shall be valid in a whole state or in such region within the state as specified in the permit. It was submitted that the petitioners have obtained renewals and the renewals are
- 15 -
endorsed. The operation in the said border cannot be disturbed. The route is a non-scheme route, particularly, the route from Mangaluru to Kerala State border, but the Tribunal without applying its mind set aside the renewal made in favour of the petitioners. The learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments:
(1). R. Rangarappa Reddy V/s. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and others (1972 (1) Mys.L.J 227);
(2). Ashwani Kumar and another V/s. Regional TransportAuthority Bikaner and another ((1998) 8 SCC 364);
(3). The Managing Director, KSRTC V/s.
Karnataka State Transport Authority and another, (W.P.No.58253 of 2013 (MV) (DD. 06.01.2014).
9. The learned counsel Sri.Palakshaiah appearing for the respondent-Karnataka State Road
- 16 -
Transport Corporation (KSRTC) contended that the permits were granted to the petitioners in the year 1992-93. The inter-state agreement was of the year 1976. The permits of the petitioners are not saved in the scheme. The petitioners are not operating their services since 2013. It was contended that the line of travel at Sl.No.7 of Appendix-V and at Sl.No.11 of Appendix-III are not the same as of the line of travel now sought by the petitioners. Line of travel ipso facto being different, the petitioners cannot claim that, by virtue of the renewal applications from time to time, they are deemed to have been saved under the scheme, two wrongs cannot make one right. It is the arguments of the learned counsel that the inter-state agreement is of the year 1976, permits are granted in the year 1992-93, which clearly demonstrates that the petitioners are not entitled to grant/renewal of permit to be saved under the scheme. Placing reliance on the Division Bench ruling of Sulochana Dhamodar case in Writ appeal
- 17 -
No.840/2007, confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP.No.779/2009, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to renewal of permits based on the inter-state agreement dated 29.6.1976.
10. Learned counsel Sri.Hareesh Bhandary appearing for KSRTC submitted that there was no inter- state agreement to attract Chapter-V of the Act. The permits of the petitioners are not saved either in 1976 agreement nor in supplemental agreement of 2009. The supplementary agreement of 2009 was the subject matter of Writ Petition (c) No.8773/2013 before the High Court of Kerala, sub-clauses 1(a) and (b) of Clause (1) being considered, held to be ultra-vires and void. However, the other provisions of the fourth supplementary agreement was held to be applicable to all the stage carriage operators and they are entitled to apply for fresh permits or seek renewal of permits if their routes are covered by the agreement. The writ
- 18 -
appeals filed by the State Transport undertaking against Kerala and Karnataka were dismissed only with respect to the two sub-clauses 1(a) and (b) of Clause-1 of 2009 supplementary agreement which would not come to the assistance of the petitioners. The learned counsel submitted that the permits granted in the year 1992-93 on 'double point tax' are not saved in the inter-state agreement, hence, the same cannot be construed as the reciprocal agreement.
11. Learned counsel Sri.J.C.Chako, appearing for the Kerala Road Transport Corporation submitted that the appendix -V of the inter-state agreement specifies the route Mangalore-Kasargod via Ullal bridge, Thokkote, Thalapadi Check-post, State border, Manjeshwar, Manglpadi, Kumla and back, number of round trips 5 (Kerala operator is to operate minimum 2 trips). Sl.No.11 of Appendix-III specifies the route Mangalore-Kasargod via B.C.Road, Panemangalore,
- 19 -
Kalladka, Nani, Puttur, Vittal, Adyanadta, Perdal and back with round trip of three. The three trips now are occupied by the State transport undertakings there being no vacancy, the petitioners are not entitled for any renewal of permits. Learned counsel submitted that the issue involved herein, is fully covered by Sulochana Damodar's case. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is hit by the principle of resjudicata. The learned counsel supported the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the KSRTC and reiterated similar arguments.
12. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. The points that arise for consideration are:
i) Whether the petitioners are entitled for renewal of the permits in terms f the inter-state agreement dated 29.6.1976 entered into between the Government of Karnataka and Government of Kerala?
- 20 -
ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the revision petitions and in setting aside the renewal of permits made by the STA, Bangalore, impugned therein?
13. It was contended on behalf of the respondents (STU) that renewal of a permit is nothing but issuing a fresh grant. The routes, line of travel and the number of trips mentioned in the inter-state agreement not being in consonance with the routes, line of travel sought by the petitioners, they are not saved neither by the inter-state agreement of 1976 nor the supplementary agreement of 2009, whereas it is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners were granted permits in the year 1992-93 and that in the absence of an agreement between the two States, no counter signature could have been granted, it was contended that the challenge to the renewal cannot be entertained ignoring the vital aspect that, the counter
- 21 -
signature had been renewed in the past. In this backdrop, it is beneficial to refer to the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gajaraj Singh (supra) which runs thus:
"35. This may be angulated from yet another legal perspective, namely, consequences that would flow from the meaning of the word `renewal' of a permit under Section 81 of the Act. Black`s Law Dictionary defines the word `renewal' at page 1296 thus:
"The act of renewing or reviving. A revival or rehabilitation of an expiring subject; that which is made a new or re-established. The substitution of a new right or obligation for another of the same nature. A change of something old to something new. To grant or obtain extension of;"
36. In P. Ramanatha Aivar's "The law Lexicon" [Reprint Edition 1987], the word `renewal' is defined at page 1107 to mean "a change of something old for something new.
- 22 -
The renewal of a `license' means a new license granted by way of renewal". The renewal of a negotiable bill or note is regarded simply as a prolongation of the original contact. The office of a "renewal", as it is termed, of a life policy, is to prevent discontinuance of forfeiture.
37. In Provash Chandra Dalui & Anr. v.
Biswanath Banerjee & Anr. [[1989] Supp. 1 SCC 487 at 496] in para 14, this Court drew the distinction between the meaning of the words extension and renewal. It was held that:
"... a distinction between extension and renewal is chiefly that in the case of renewal, a new lease is required while in the case of extension the same lease continues in force during additional period by the performance of stipulated act. In other words, the word `extension' when used in its proper and usual sense in connection
- 23 -
with a lease, means prolongation of the lease."
38. It is settled law that grant of renewal is a fresh grant though it breaths life into the operation of the previous lease or licence granted as per existing appropriate provisions of the Act, rules or orders or acts intra vires or as per the law in operation as on the date of renewal. The right to get renewal of a permit under the Act is not a vested right but a privilege subject to fulfillment of the conditions precedent enumerated under the Act. Under Section 58 of the Repealed Act, renewal of a permit is a preferential right and refusal thereof is an exception. But the Act expresses different intention. Sections 66, 70, 71 and 80 prescribe procedure for making application and compliance of the conditions mentioned therein. Existence of the provisions of the Act consistent with the Repealed Act is a pre- condition. Grant of renewal under Section 81 is a discretion given to the authority [STA or RTA] subject to the conditions and the
- 24 -
requirement of law. Discretion given by a statute connotes making a choice between competing considerations according to rules of reason and justice and not arbitrary or whim but legal and regular. Sections 70 and 71 read with Section 81 do indicate that grant of permit or renewal thereof is not a matter of right or course. It is subject of rejection for reasons to be recorded in support thereof. Therefore, right to renewal of a permit under Section 81 is not a vested or accrued right but a privilege to get renewal according to law in operation and after compliance with the pre-conditions and abiding the law."
14. In the case of 'KSRTC v. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL' reported in ILR 1994 KAR 1697, the Division Bench of this Court held thus:
"xxxx The conduct of the appellant in acquiescing in the renewal of the permits over a long period, as observed by the Authorities and the learned Single Judge, cannot create
- 25 -
or constitute an estoppel from enforcing his rights under the Scheme and from objecting against the renewal of the permit in view of the subsistence of a valid scheme. In fact, the object of the process of renewal, inter alia, appears to be for the authority to consider whether in the circumstances existing as on the date of the application such renewal can be validly granted to the operator. In that view of the matter, the view taken by the learned Judge appears to be erroneous."
15. In the case of Sulochana Damodar (supra), the Division Bench observed thus:
"11.5 In view of the undisputed fact that, the intra-State route by the permits granted by the authorities in the State of Kerala and was later on countersigned by the authorities of State of Karnataka, without there being any reciprocal agreement between the two States with regard to routes in question, in the manner contemplated under Section 88 (5) and (6) of the Act, the action of STA, Karnataka was wholly illegal. In the absence of an inter-State agreement, the
- 26 -
grant and the renewal, accorded earlier being illegal, the same cannot be continued, by perpetuating illegality. Mere acquiescence of the grant or renewal of permits earlier cannot create a right in favour of the appellants nor constitute an estoppel against the revision petitioners from enforcing their rights and questioning the renewals of permits, which had been granted de hors the relevant provisions of the Statute. As held by the Apex Court, grant of renewal is a fresh grant, though it breathes life into the previous grant, as per existing provisions of the Act. Consequently, we hold that the revision petitions filed before the Tribunal questioning the renewal of counter signature by the STA, Karnataka were maintainable and the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in over-ruling the objection raised by the appellants, so far as the question of maintainability is concerned. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, on the point of maintainability."
- 27 -
16. In the case of The Managing Director, KSRTC -v- Karnataka State Transport Authority in W.P. No.58253/2013 (MV) (DD 6.1.2014), the learned Single Judge has held thus:
"6. In the light of the above submission and on perusal of the interim order dated 20.12.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in W.A.No.1955/2013, I am of the view that this writ petition does not survive for consideration. The Authorities viz: respondents 1 and 2 have to consider the matter in accordance with law keeping in mind the interim order passed in the writ appeal after providing an opportunity to both the parties.
Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed."
17. In the case of Ashwin Kumar -v- Regional "
Transport Authority reported in (1999)8 SCC 364, it is held thus:
- 28 -
"6. xxxx The existence of a route is a condition precedent for exercise of the power under Sub-section (1) of Section 88 of the Act. Intra (inter) State route under the scheme of the Act has to be reciprocal and cannot be unilaterally created by one State or an Authority in the State. The concerned State Governments are supposed to deliberate and decide the routes to be opened as inter-State routes by determining the number of trips each route to have and prescribe other conditions for the smooth functioning of the Act to achieve its objective which is claimed to be a social welfare legislation. It has to be noted that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which related to the law of motor vehicles was amended from time to time to keep it up to date. Various committees like National Transport Policy Committee, National Police Commission, Road Safety Committee, Low Powered Two Wheelers Committee and the Law Commission of India examined different aspects of the road transport and recommended updating, simplification and rationalisation of the law relating to motor
- 29 -
vehicles. A working group was constituted in January, 1984 to review all the provisions of the Act No. 4 of 1939 and to submit draft proposals for comprehensive legislation to replace the existing law. xxxx"
18. In the case of R.Venkatesham Chetty -vs- Karnataka State and others reported in (2004)13 SCC 659 it is held thus:
"2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the view taken by the High Court was erroneous inasmuch as the appellant had a valid permit, the conditions of which could be varied by adding one more trip. We do not find any substance in the argument. Section 63 of the repealed Act provides that no vehicle can be allowed to ply on an inter-State route unless there is a reciprocal agreement between the two States providing for numbers of vehicles and trips to be operated on the inter-State route by two or more States and published in the respective gazettes. It is not disputed that the said agreement provided for two permits having
- 30 -
one return trip each from each State and since there were already two return trips being operated from the side of Karnataka, there was no scope for further grant of an additional return trip. For these reasons, the appellant could not have been granted variation in permits by granting additional return trip on the inter-State route."
19. In the case of ADARSH TRAVELS BUS SERVICE AND ANOTHER VS. STATEOF U.P. AND OTHERS, reported in (1985) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES 557; the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:
"8. A route means not only the notional line but also the actual road over which the motor vehicles run. It is impossible to accept the view that only the termini have to be looked at and the rest of the highway ignored in order to discover a route for the purposes of the Motor Vehicles Act, and that route AB being different from route CD even if C&D happen to be two points on the highway from A to B, the nationalization of route CD has no
- 31 -
effect whatsoever on the permits to ply stage carriages on the route AB. Route AB covers and includes every part of the particular highway from A to B traversed by the motor vehicle along that route. This is clear from insertion of Section 2(28-A) in the Act by the amending Act of 1969."
20. In the case of A.Venkatakrishnan vs. STA, Kerala reported in (2004) 11 SCC 207, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under;
"12. Furthermore, the definition of "route", as contained in Section 2(38) of the Act means a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another. Therefore, before an inter-State route in respect whereof a permit is sought to be granted is determined, the question of filing any application therefor by a person before the State Transport Authority of his State would not arise unless an agreement in relation thereto has been entered into by the States concerned and the routes as also the number of trips are fixed thereunder. We are, therefore, of
- 32 -
the opinion that the State Transport Authority of one State would have no jurisdiction to entertain an application for grant of an inter- State route, particularly when Section 80 of the Act will have no application in relation thereof unless an agreement is entered into by the State concerned."
21. Much emphasis is placed by the Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners on the learned Single Judge's order of the High Court of Kerala, Annexure-A, in W.P.(C) 8773/2013 (V). In the said Judgment, the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala considered clause 1(a) and 1(b) of clause 1 of the IV supplementary agreement 2009 which reads as under:
"(a) The Stage Carriage services in the inter-state route as shown in Annexure I shall be exclusively operated by State Transport Undertaking of Karnataka.
(b) The stage carriage services in the inter-state routes as shown in Annexure II
- 33 -
shall be exclusively operated by State Transport Undertaking of Kerala".
22. Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 referred to in the sub-clauses (a) and (b) are extracted below:
"(1) (a) Annexure I : The Inter-State routes shown in Annexure-I shall be exclusively operated by the State Transport Undertakings (KSRTC, NWKRTC AND NEKRTC) of Karnataka.
(b) Annexure II : The Inter-State routes as shown in Annexure II shall be exclusively operated by the State Transport Undertaking of Kerala."
23. The said clauses excluded the private bus operators and gave monopoly to STUs. Section 88(5) and (6) of the Act contemplates, routes or permits are to be granted which covers inter-state routes for which counter signature is required, unilateral modification/substitution cannot be made by a single
- 34 -
State without obtaining the counter signature of the other State. The due procedure prescribed under Chapter-VI of the Act not being followed, sub-clauses 1(a) and (b) f the IV Supplementary agreement were held to be ultarvires the Act. In the said Judgment, it was held that only if the petitioners were not operating the entire route as specified in Sl.No.11 of Appendix-III and Sl.No.7 of Appendix-V, the Authorities were justified in rejecting their claim. This Judgment was challenged by the STUs in W.A.1955/2013 and connected maters before the High Court of Kerala which came to be dismissed. Further, on challenge before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, the same came to be dismissed. Thus, the order of the learned single judge of the Kerala High Court is upheld.
24. As defined under section 2(38) of the Act, 'Route' is a line of travel which specifies the highway
- 35 -
which may be traversed by a motor vehilce between one terminus and another . What is covered under the 1976 agreement is the approved route as per Sl.No.7 of Appendix-V, similarly Sl.No.11 in Appendix-III. The route for which the renewal of permit is sought by the petitioners is Mangalore-Kasargod and back via Thokkatu, Manjeshwara, Uppala, Bayar Cross, Bandiyodu Kumbla and Chowki (At Annexure-L), which is different from the routes specified at Sl.No.7 of Appendix-V and Sl.No.11 of Appendix-III. It is the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the number of trips mentioned in the said appendix is not constantly required to be maintained. None of the permits issued to the petitioners were re-issued to the STUs during the period from June 2013, the month in which the petitioner temporarily stopped his services and Jan 2014, the month in which the permits of the petitioners were renewed by the Karnataka STA. Even assuming these
- 36 -
facts are true, the line of travel apparently is different. Even on that count, it can be held that the petitioners are not coming within the ambit of the inter-state agreement and the judgment of the learned single judge of the High Court of Kerala is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is an undisputed fact that intra- state route was converted into an inter-state routes by the permits granted by the Authorities in the State of Kerala and subsequently was countersigned by the Authorities in the State of Karnataka. Section 88(5) and (6) of the Act contemplates the procedure to be followed for the agreement to be arrived at between the States. In the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that in the absence of the existence of an inter-state route, the authorities under the Act were not justified in granting the permits to the operators. The existences of permit depends upon the reciprocal agreements between the States covered by the route. It is settled legal position that
- 37 -
inter-state route under the Scheme of the Act has to be reciprocated and cannot be unilaterally created by one State or Transport Authority of a particular State. The Karnataka-Kerala route was the subject matter in the case of Sulochana Damodar wherein, it is held that there is no agreement between the two States of Kerala and Karnataka with regard to the routes in the manner contemplated under Section 88(5) and (6) of the Act. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner made an endeavour to distinguish this case that it was held in the context of considering the mileage aspect, but the fact remains that this Court examined the similar issue as regards the renewal of permits and the counter signatures made by the STA, Karnataka, with respect to Karnataka and Kerala route and held that renewal of permits was illegal and such error cannot be perpetuated. The said Judgment of Sulochana Damodar case confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is applicable to the facts of the present case. The
- 38 -
arguments advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioners as regards Article 14, 19(1)(j) and 21 would be of no assistance to the petitioners in view of the Judgments referred to above.
25. It is significant to note that the Karnataka State Transport Authority proceeded to grant renewal of permits by curtailing the additional round trip from Kasargod to Kanakanady for a further period of five years from 4.7.2012 to 3.7.2017 on double point tax basis, subject to counter signature by STA, Kerala and also subject to the final decision of writ appeals in Writ Appeals No.1925/2013 and 1955/2013 pending before the Division Bench of Kerala High Court. Indisputably, the petitioners had approached the Kerala State Transport Authority to obtain counter signature, the same is rejected for the reason that Mangaluru- Kasargod or Kasargod-Mangaluru route permitted, do
- 39 -
not figure in the inter state transport agreement between Karnataka and Kerala States.
26. Thus, it is clear that the route in question is not the same as that of the route specified in Sl. No.11 of Appendix-III or Sl. No.7 of Appendix-V to get the benefit of the learned Single Judge's Order of Kerala High Court in Writ Petition.C. No.8210/2013. Secondly, there is no inter state agreement between the Karnataka and Kerala States for the routes in question which is mandatory in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar, (supra) followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sulochana Damodar (supra). It is also not in dispute that the permits are not counter signed by the STA, Kerala subsequent to renewal of permit by STA, Karnataka. Mere renewal of permits granted by the STA, Karnataka without there being any agreements between the two States with regard to routes in question, would not
- 40 -
create a right in favour of the petitioners. Further, this Court in the case of 'M/s. Devee Motors vs. Karnataka State Transport Authority' in Writ Petitions No.49328-49330/2012 [DD-16.1.2013] considering the similar set of facts as held that none of the inter state routes relating to the petitioners permits figure in any of the inter-state agreements entered into between Karnataka and Kerala. Thus, the rejection of grant or renewal of permit by the Authorities has been upheld. Given the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal having regard to the mandatory requirements of the inter-state agreement for the route, cannot be said to be erroneous. It is in conformity with the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) and in the case of A.Venkatakrishnan (supra) as well as the judgment of this Court in Sulochana Damodar (supra) confirmed by the Apex Court.
- 41 -
In view of the same, writ petitions are devoid of merits and accordingly stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ln, AN/-