Karnataka High Court
Smt P N Nagarathnamma vs The Karnataka State Transport ... on 11 June, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 765, 2019 (3) AKR 744, (2019) 4 KCCR 3399, (2019) 5 KANT LJ 770
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
W.P.Nos.11282 - 11283/2016 c/w
W.P.No.6325/2016 & W.P.No.6326/2016 (MV)
IN W.P.Nos.11282 - 11283/2016:
BETWEEN :
1. SMT.P.N.NAGARATHNAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs
SRI P.N.NARASIMHAMURTHY
WHO IS PETITIONER No.2 IN
THIE WRIT PETITION.
(CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE
COURT ORDER DATED 15.03.2018)
1(a). SRI P.N.NARASIMHAMURTHY
S/O PALAVALLI ADHISHESHAIAH,
AGED 70 YEARS,
VIJAYALAKSHMI MOTORS,
R/AT VASTANKITHA NILAYA,
PRASHANTHNAGAR,
BEHIND CHANDANAHALLI ROAD,
NEW DEVARAYANA PATNA EXTENSION
TUMAKURU-572101 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI R.LOKESH, ADV.)
AND :
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE
TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
I FLOOR, "A"BLOCK, TTMC COMPLEX,
BMTC BUILDINGS, K.H.ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 027
-2-
BY ITS SECRETARY
2. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 027
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
3. SRI B.G.KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O M.P.GANGAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
NO.9/A, RACE COURSE ROAD
MADHAVANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 001 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.J.ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI HAREESH T. BHANDARY, ADV. FOR R-2;
SRI C.V.KUMAR, ADV. FOR C/R-3.)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
TRIBUNAL DATED 16.02.2016 IN R.P.No.245/2014 AND
R.P.No.559/2014 AT ANEEXURE-G.
IN W.P.No.6325/2016:
BETWEEN :
SRI B.G.KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O M.P.GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
SRI VENKATESHWARA MOTOR SERVICE
No.9-A, RACE COURSE ROAD,
MADHAVANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560001 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.V.KUMAR, ADV.)
AND :
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE
TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
FIRST FLOOR, A BLOCK
BMTC BUILDING,
-3-
SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560027
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
2. SRI P.N.NARASIMHAMURTHY
S/O SRI P.N.ADISHESHAIAH,
MAJOR IN AGE,
VIJAYALAKSHMI MOTORS,
VASTANKITHA NILAYA,
NEW DEVARAYAPURA EXTENSION
TUMAKURU-572101 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.J.ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R-1.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE DATED 04.01.2016 MADE ON I.A.NO.1
IN R.P.NO.487/2015 [ANNEXURE-G] AND TO REMAND THE
MATTER TO KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL BANGALORE WITH A DIRECTION TO RECONSIDER
THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
IN W.P.No.6326/2016:
BETWEEN :
SRI B.G.KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O M.P.GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
SRI VENKATESHWARA MOTOR SERVICE
No.9-A, RACE COURSE ROAD,
MADHAVANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560001 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.V.KUMAR, ADV.)
AND :
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE
TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
FIRST FLOOR, A BLOCK
BMTC BUILDING,
-4-
SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560027
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
2. SMT.P.N.NAGARATHNAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs.
2(a) SRI P.N.NARASIMHAMURTHY
S/O PALAVALLI ADHISHESHAIAH,
AGED 70 YEARS,
VIJAYALAKSHMI MOTORS,
R/AT VASTANKITHA NILAYA,
PRASHANTHNAGAR,
BEHIND CHANDANAHALLI ROAD,
NEW DEVARAYANA PATNA EXTENSION
TUMAKURU-572101
(CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE
COURT ORDER DATED 15.03.2018) ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.J.ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI R.LOKESH, ADV. FOR R-2(a).)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE DATED 04.01.2016 MADE ON I.A.NO.1
IN R.P.NO.489/2015 [ANNEXURE-G] AND TO REMAND THE
MATTER TO KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL BANGALORE WITH A DIRECTION TO RECONSIDER
THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 16.04.2019, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J.,
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
ORDER
These petitions involving similar and akin issues, have been considered together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. For the purpose of analyzing the issue on hand, the facts of W.P.Nos.11282-283/2016 are considered and the same in the nutshell are as under:
3. Publication of inter-state agreement dated 01.09.1975 made between the State of Karnataka and State of Andhra Pradesh granting exemptions to the enclave permits issued under Section 88[1] of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ['Act' for short] and the relating counter signature are significant factors in as much as inter-state permits involved in the present case are concerned.
4. The petitioner No.1 was granted with permit by the Karnataka State Transport Authority ['KSTA' for short] bearing No.1/2014-15 valid up to 22.06.2019 on -6- the route Tumkur to I.D. Halli. Similarly, the petitioner No.2 was also granted with permit bearing No.8/2014- 15 by KSTA valid up to 23.12.2019on the route I.D. Halli to Tumkur. The respondent No.2 KSRTC has challenged the grant of permits of the petitioners in R.P.No.245/2014 [in respect of Smt.Nagarathnamma] and R.P.No.559/2014 [in respect of P.N.Narasimhamurthy]. The Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal ['Tribunal' for short] has passed the common order dated 16.02.2016, setting aside the permits of the petitioners. Hence, these writ petitions. However, by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court and extended from time to time, the petitioners are operating their services in terms of the routes assigned in the permits.
5. Learned counsel Sri.Lokesh.R appearing for the petitioners submitted that the finding of the Tribunal in as much as setting aside the grant of -7- permits in the route Tumkur to I.D. Halli is unjustifiable in view of the three Joint Survey Reports being available for analyzing the issue of allegation of the enclave permits traveling beyond 16 kilometers. It was argued that "the trip" and a "route'' envisaged under the provisions of the Act are misconstrued by the Tribunal. Reference was made to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.1324/1974 dated 22.10.1975 (Ramachandra chetti Vs. The RTO Ananthpur and another) wherein, it has been observed that if part of the route lies in any other State and the length of the part of the route does not exceed 16 kilometers then the permit need not be counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority of the State. It has no reference to the number of trips made by the bus. Hence, no counter signature of the Regional Transport Authority ['RTA' for short] of the other State is necessary for the route Sugur to Hindupur and back to Sugur, such route situated within the State of Andhra Pradesh -8- (enclave route) but the starting point and termini of the route permits (Tumkur to I.D.Halli) both situated in the State of Karnataka. The permits of the petitioners are saved under the Bangalore Scheme.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC submitted that the permit granted to the petitioners on the route Tumkur to I.D.Halli via Sugur and Hindupur and back to Sugur in Andrapradesh State cannot be sustained for three reasons namely, [1] the said permit is not saved as enclave permit; [2] The said route from Sugur to Hindupur with return trip of Hindupur to Sugur is on the inter-state route which necessarily requires inter-state agreement between the two States and the counter-signature of the other State; and [3] The route Madhugiri to Antarasanahalli of about 39 kilometers is notified route in terms of the Bangalore Scheme, 1960 and the notification dated 17.01.1996, the permit impugned is in contravention of Bangalore -9- Scheme. Considering these aspects, the tribunal has rightly set aside the permit which requires to be confirmed by this Court. No infirmity can be found in the order of the Tribunal impugned herein.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 supports the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - KSRTC.
8. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
9. The permits in question are operating in the neighboring State of Andrapradesh from Sugur to Hindupur and back in the route Tumkur to I.D. Halli. The distance is 13.2 kms. "Route" as defined under Section 2 [38] of the Act is a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another. Explanation to Section 70 of the Act
- 10 -
contemplates that "trip" means a single journey from one point to another and every return journey shall be deemed to be a separate trip for the purposes of Section 70, 72, 80 and 102 of the Act. In terms of the said provision, the route from Sugur to Hindupur shall be a trip and the return journey shall be a separate trip (round trip). The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the permit passing through 13.2 kilometers in the neighboring Andhra Pradesh State and again entering to Karnataka State is an enclave route entitled to the benefit under second proviso to Section 88 cannot be countenanced for the reason that the route from Sugur to Hindupur and back to Sugur forms a round trip. Such a round trip has to be construed as an inter-state route which necessarily requires an inter- state agreement and counter signature of the State Transport Authority of Andrapradesh.
- 11 -
10. As per second proviso to Section 88 an enclave route is one where both the starting point and terminal point of a route are situate within the same State, but part of such route lies in any other State and the length of such part does not exceed sixteen kilometers, the permit shall be valid in the other State in respect of that part of the route which is in that other State notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), a permit granted or countersigned by a State Transport Authority shall be valid in the whole State or in such regions within the State as may be specified in the permit. In the case of G.S.Ramachandra Chetti the Hon'ble Andrapradesh High Court in the context of the Stage carriage permit making two trips on the route which does not exceed 16 kilometers has made certain observations, but it is not forthcoming whether a round trip or the number of trips in the same route was the subject matter considered by the Hon'ble Court. As discussed above, 'trip' is different from 'round trip'. If
- 12 -
the stage carriage permit is making a trip from Sugur to Hindupur in the A.P. route (enclave route) and directly reaching the route in the State of Karnataka, it may not be necessary for such enclave route to get the counter- signature by the Regional Transport Authority of the other State notwithstanding the number of trips in the same route but not the return trip. However in the present case, the route from Sugur to Hindupur and back to Sugur is admittedly a round trip. As per the definition of route under Section 2(38) route shall be from one terminus to another but not the same terminus, the route Sugur to Hindupur and back to Sugur would not qualify to get attracted under the second proviso to Section 88 which refers to part of such route which lies in any other state and the length of such part does not exceed Sixteen kilo meters. Hence, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the absence of reciprocal agreements between the States covered by the route, the
- 13 -
permit granted by the Authority in favour of the petitioner is without jurisdiction.
11. It is significant to note that Section 88(1) of the Act can not be read in isolation. It has to be read with the area scheme notified by the Government of Karnataka. Clause 3, Part (a) and (b) of the Bangalore Scheme, 1960 is quoted hereunder for ready reference:
"[a] That the passenger transport services on the routes appearing at Sl.No.1 to 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 39 and 53 of the statement appended including services between any two places therein should be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking to the complete exclusion of other operators;
[b] Subject to [a] above, the State Transport Undertaking should operate services on the remaining routes appearing in the statement appended between the two specified terminals only, to the complete exclusion of all
- 14 -
other operators, excluding the
intermediate routes;"
12. The Routes under the serial number
mentioned in Category (a) completely excludes private operators as on the date of the original scheme. In part
(b) the STU (State Transport Undertaking) was provided with the exclusive rights to operate services between two specified terminals to the complete exclusion of other operators excluding the intermediate routes i.e., the operators as on the date of the original schemes are excluded from the prohibition provided that they are operating on the intermediate routes. The route of the petitioners overlaps the Bangalore Scheme from Antharasanahalli to Madhugiri, i.e., Sl.No.64 of Bangalore Scheme. The Applicability of Bangalore Schemes in Parts(a) and (b) has been clarified by the State Government in the notification dated 17.01.1996 at Annexure-R5. The said modification was made for
- 15 -
providing exemption to a permit in Sl.No.72 of Appendix-A in the existed agreement of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh dated 28.08.1975. However, it has been clearly specified that no exemption has been provided therein for operation of services by any private operators. Hence, the contention of the petitioners that there is an exemption to the future operators in Bangalore Scheme Clause(3) Part(b) must fail. These aspects have been elaborately analyzed by the Tribunal referring to the approved schemes. In the absence of any application filed by the petitioners seeking for variation/curtailment of the routes, no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal in setting aside the permits.
13. W.P.No.6325/2016 and connected matters are filed by the rival operators being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in rejecting I.As filed for condonation of delay as well as the revision petitions
- 16 -
wherein the stage carriage permit granted in favour of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.11282-283/2016 was challenged. In view of the approval of the order of the Tribunal in setting aside the permit of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.11282-283/2016, the adjudication on these connected matters would only be academic.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo dated 16.04.2019 along with the copy of the application said to have been filed by the petitioner No.2 seeking for the variation/curtailment of the route under Section 80[3] of the Act. It is needless to observe that if such an application is filed by the petitioner as contended, the same shall be considered by the respondent authorities in accordance with law and a decision shall be taken in an expedite manner in any event not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, if not already disposed of.
- 17 -
However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to seek for variation/curtailment of the route relating to the permits in question are concerned.
With the aforesaid observations and directions writ petitions stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE NC