Karnataka High Court
S Sachidananda Chatra vs The State Transport Authority on 1 March, 2013
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H.N.Nagamohan Das
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS
WRIT PETITION NOs:51756-51757/2012 (MV)
A/W
WRIT PETITION NOs.51758-51759/2012 (MV)
IN WRIT PETITION NOs.51756-51757/2012
BETWEEN:
S.SACHIDANANDA CHATRA
S/O. LATE GOVINDA CHATRA
AGED 64 YEARS
BUS OPERATOR
SRI.DURGAMBA, MAIN ROAD
KUNDAPURA
UDUPI DISTRICT ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.B.R.SUNDARARAJA GUPTA, ADV,)
AND:
1. THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 1
BY ITS SECRETARY
2. B.G.MRUTHYUNJAYA
MAJOR
MRUTHYUNJAYA MOTOR SERVICE
2
NO.1427, 3RD CROSS, II STAGE
VIDYANAGAR, DAVANAGERE - 577 005
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.T.K.VEDAMURTHY, HCGP, FOR R1;
SRI.S.V.KRISHNASWAMY, ADV,. FOR R2)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE STATE TRANSPORT
AUTHORITY PASSED IN SUBJECT NO.111/99 AND 112/99
DT.27.08.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND THAT OF THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL IN RP.NO.1175/2012 AND 1176/2012
DT.18.12.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
IN WRIT PETITION NOs.51758-51759/2012
BETWEEN
THE PRESIDENT
TRANSPORT COOPERATIVE
SOCIETY LIMITED, KOPPA
CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.E.NAGESH, ADV)
AND
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE
TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001
BY ITS SECRETARY
2. SRI.B.G.MRUTHYUNJAYA
MRUTHYUNJAYA MOTOR SERVICES
NO.1427, 3RD CROSS,
3
SECOND STAGE, VIDYANAGAR,
DAVANAGERE- 577 005 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.T.K.VEDAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R1;
BY SRI.S.V.KRISHNAMURTHY, ADV., FOR R2)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE RESOLUTION OF THE R1 PASSED IN
SUBJECTS NO.111 & 112 OF 1999 DT.27.08.2012 MARKED
UNDER ANNEXURE- A AND THE ORDER OF THE
KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PASSED IN REV.PET.NOS.1369/12 AND 1370/2012
DT.18.12.2012 MARKED UNDER ANNEXURE-D BY ISSUE
OF WRIT OF CERTIORARY.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
These two writ petitions are directed against the order dated 27.08.2012 passed by the respondent No.1 as per Annexure-A and the order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Annexure - E. The respondent No.2 made an application on 02.03.1999 to the respondent No.1 for grant of stage carriage permit on the route from Kampli to Bellary. Subsequently, on 05.09.2003, the respondent No.2 made 4 modified application for grant of stage carriage permit on the route from Chitradurga to Vittala. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 filed another modified application on 06.12.2005, on the route from Davanagere to Vittala. Under the impugned order at Annexure-A, the respondent No.1 granted stage carriage permit in favour of the respondent no.2 on the modified route from Davanagere to Vittala. Aggrieved by the order at Annexure-A, the petitioner herein and the Karnataka State road Transport corporation filed revision petitions before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Revision Petition Nos.1175/2012, 1176/2012, 1242/2012, 1243/2012, 1369/2012 and 1370/2012. The Tribunal after hearing arguments on both side passed the impugned order at Annexure-E and confirmed the grant permit in favour of the respondent No.2. Therefore, these writ petitions are filed.
2. Heard arguments and perused the entire writ papers.
5
3. On the basis of arguments, the following points will arises for my consideration in these writ petitions.
1) Without permitting the respondent No.2 to modify the original application, the grant of permit to the modified route is bad in law?
2) Whether the grant of permit on the notified route is contrary to the Section 103 of Motor vehicle Act?
3) Whether the respondent No.1 is legally correct in granting the permit from the point chosen by the respondent no.2 without there being any approval by the jurisdictional police authorities?
4. On point No.1:-
Section 72(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under:
A reading of the above section specifies that the Regional Transport Authority may grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or a modified application or he may refuse it. In the instant case, it is not 6 in dispute that initially the respondent No.2 made an application in the year 1999 for grant of stage carriage permit on the route from Kampli to Bellary. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 made an application on 05.09.2003, for a modified route from Chitradurga to Vittala. Lastly, the respondent No.2 made another application on 06.12.2005 on the modified route from Davanagere to Vittala. When the respondent No.2 made an application for modified route in the year 2005, it necessarily implies that he has given up his claim for the route from Kampli to Bellary and Chitradurga to Vittala. Further, as on the date of consideration of the application of the respondent No.2 by the respondent No.1 the only question that was before him was the modified route from Davanagere to Vittala. Therefore, the grant of permit on the modified route from Davanagere to Vittala is well within the power of respondent No.1 as specified in 72(1) of Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, I find no subsist in this contention of the learned 7 counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in negative.
5. On point No.2:-
The proposed route from Davanagere to Vittala comes under the Shimoga Scheme and Bangalore Scheme. There is overlapping on the notified route at old Thungabhadra bridge and the pump well near Mangalore. The petitioners are not questioning the over lapping of notified route near Pump well. But the petitioners are questioning the over lapping of notified route at old Thungabhadra bridge. A perusal of the route map specifies that there is only one crossing on the notified route at old Thungabhadra bridge. In identical circumstances, the Supreme Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Coporation V/s. Ashrafulla Khan reported in AIR 2002 SC 629 held as under:
"24. An example posed by the Full Bench in its judgment as to what happens when an operator on a non-notified route has to cut across a notified 8 route by taking 'U' turn on a notified route and then taking left turn to enter on a non-notified route was not an appropriate. In such a case, it may not amount to overlapping. It would be only intersection. There may be a crossing where there is an island in the centre and a private operator in 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 be not overlapping, but it would be an intersection because it only cuts across the notified route because of size of crossing or traffic regulations. Therefore, the Crossing of notified route at old Thungabhadra bridge will not amount to overlapping of the notified route. The conclusion of the respondent No.1 and the Tribunal holding that the crossing of old Tungabhadra bridge will not amount to overlapping of notified route is in accordance with law as declared by the Apex Court in Ashrafulla Khan's case. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in negative.9
6. On point No.3:-
It is not in dispute that there is a private bus stand in Davanagere. If private bus services commence its operations from the said bus stand, then it has to necessarily pass through the notified route NH4, Poona to Bangalore. But in the instant case, the respondent No.2 made an application for grant of stage carriage permit from a private stop called Palleda service station which is outside the private bus stand and National High Way No.4. If the services commences from Palleda service station then there is no need to cross the National High Way No.4. But the question is whether the respondent No.1 can grant permit from a private place chosen by the respondent No.2 in his application. Rule 102 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules specifies that the Regional Transport authority with the permission from the Commissioner of police or District Magistrate may prohibit the use of specified place or any place specified nature or clause of vehicle from halting or 10 picking up or setting down passengers. But there is no bar for the Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit from the particular point under Section 72(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. By considering this aspect in this matter, the Regional State Transport Authority and also the Tribunal rightly held that there is no bar either under the Act or under the rules of grant of permit from a particular point. Accordingly, the point no.3 is answered in negative.
For the reasons stated above the writ petitions are hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ*