Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Autorickshaw Dealers vs Sri Somashekar on 29 August, 2012
Author: K.L. Manjunath
Bench: K.L. Manjunath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L. MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO
WRIT APPEAL Nos.3415-3420/2012 (MV)
A/w
WRIT APPEAL Nos.3421-3423/2012 (MV) &
WRIT APPEAL Nos.3429-3444/2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
WA Nos 3415-3420/2012:
BANGALORE AUTORICKSHAW DEALERS
AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATION (Regd.)
NO. 24/17, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARVATHIPURAM, BANGALORE
REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
SRI. D P RAVICHANDRA .. APPELLANT
(By Sri.C V KUMAR)
AND:
1 SRI SOMASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O SRI. RUDRAIAH
NO. 238, MANJUNAHTHA NILAYA,
5TH CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, MAHAGANAPATHI
NAGARA, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-10
2
2 BANGALORE AUTO DRIVERS SOUHARDHA
CO-OPERATIVE LTD.
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT
NO. 35, 2ND CROSS, 60 FEET ROAD,
MAHAGANAPATHINAGAR, WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-10
3 MR. SYED SAMIULLA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI. SYED CHOTA SAB
NO.247, 4TH CROSS, VINOBHANAGARA
K G HALLI, BANGALORE-45
4 STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
TRANSPORT DEPT., M S BUILDING,
DR. B R AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-01
5 COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT OFFICE OF THE
COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT, 5TH FLOOR,
M S BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-01
6 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
BY ITS SECRETARY, BANGALORE URBAN DIST.
JAYANAGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX,
BANGALORE -11
7 THE ADDL. SECRETARY
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY & RTO,
BANGALORE CENTRAL, KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE -34
8 THE ADDL. SECRETARY
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY & RTO,
BANGALORE EAST
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE -08
9 THE ADDL. SECY.,
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY & RTO,
3
BANGALORE WEST, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE -10
10 THE ADDL. SECRETARY
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY & RTO,
BANGALORE NORTH,
YESHWANTHAPUR, BANGALORE -22
11 THE ADDL. SECRETARY
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY & RTO,
GNANABHARATHI
BANGALORE -56
12 THE ADDL. SECRETARY
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY &
RTO, BANGALORE NOTH,
ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE-100
13 THE ADDL. SECRETARY
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY &
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
K R PURAM, BANGALORE-36
14 THE ADDL. SECRETARY
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY &
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-64
15 THE ADDL. SECRETARY
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY &
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE-123
16 AKHILA KARNATAKA SHRAMAJEEVIGALA
KSHEMABHIVRUDHI SANGHA (REG).
NO. 662, 2ND CROSS,
27TH MAIN, NANDINI EXTENSION,
BANGALORE-96, BY ITS PRESIDENT
4
17 MR. MOHAMMED ZABEER
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O MUSTAFA, R/AT MUKTHINAGAR,
PILLANNAGARDEN, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
K G HALLI BANGALORE
18 M V THIRUNAVAKKARASU
AGED 47 YEARS,
S/O SELVAM, R/AT NO. 899/1, 8TH MAIN
ROAD, III STAGE, 3RD BLOCK,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BANGALORE-79
19 MR. ABDUL KHADER
AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O ABDUL JABBAR, R/AT NO. 60
HAMEED KHAN GARDEN, KALASIPALYAM,
BANGALORE-02 .. RESPONDENTS
(ADVOCATE Sri.P.R. RAMESH for R-1-3, 16)
(Sri.B.Veerappa, AGA for R-4 to 15)
WRIT APPEALS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 29453-455/11 C/W
16639-641/12 DATED 1/6/12.
BETWEEN:
WA Nos. 3421-3423/2012:
AKILA KARNATAKA SHRAMA JEEVIGALA
KSHEMABIVRUDDI
SANGHA(REGD), NO.662, 2ND CROSS
27TH MAIN, NANDINI EXTENSION
BANGALORE-560096
BY ITS PRESIDENT .. APPELLANT
(By Sri.B R SUNDARARAJA GUPTA)
AND:
5
1 SRI SOMASHEKAR
S/O SRI RUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
NO.238, MANJUNATHA NILAYA
5TH CROSS, 6TH BLOCK
MAHAGANAPATHI NAGAR
RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560010
2 BANGALORE AUTO DRIVERS SOWHARDA COOPERATIVE
LIMITED, BY ITS PRESIDENT
NO.35, 2ND CROSS, 60 FEET ROAD
MAHAGANAPATHI NAGAR
WEST OF CHORD ROAD
RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560010
3 MR SYED SAMIULLA
S/O LATE MR SYED CHOTA SAB
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
NO.247, 4TH CROSS
VINOBHA NAGAR
K G HALLI, BANGALORE-560010
4 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
MULTISTOREYED BUILDINGS
DR AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
5 THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR
TRANSPORT, 5TH FLOOR
MULTISTOREYED BUILDING
DR AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
6 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
BY ITS SECRETARY
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
6
JAYANAGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX
BANGALORE-560011
7 THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
AND REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
BANGALORE CENTRAL
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE-560034
8 THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
AND REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
BANGALORE EAST
INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-560008
9 THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
AND REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
BANGALORE WEST
RAJAJINAGARA
BANGALORE-560010
10 THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
AND REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
BANGALORE NORTH
YESHAWANTHAPUR
BANGALORE-560022
11 THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
AND REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
GNANABHARATHI
BANGALORE-560056
12 THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
AND REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
7
ELECTRONIC CITY
BANGALORE-560100
13 THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
AND REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
K R PURAM
BANGALORE-560036
14 THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
AND REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
YELAHANKA
BANGALORE-560064
15 THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
AND REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
NELAMANGALA
BANGALORE-560123 .. RESPONDENTS
(ADVOCATE Sri.P.R.RAMESH FOR R-1 TO 3)
(SRI.B.VEERAPPA, AGA FOR R-4 TO 15)
WRIT APPEALS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 01/06/2012 IN WP.NO.29453-29455/2011 IN SO
FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE DIRECTIONS NO.1 AND 2
IN THE FINAL ORDER DATED 01/06/2012 PASSED IN
WRIT PETITION NOS.29453 TO 455/2011.
BETWEEN:
WA Nos. 3429-3444/2012:
1 SMT CHAYADEVI
W/O V LAKSHMINARAYAN SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
NO.1/A, BEHIND MINERVA MILLS
8
MAGADI ROAD
BANGALORE-23
2 MR INAYATHULLA
S/O SYED AZIZ
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
NO.79, S M HUTS
PADARAYANAPURA
BANGALORE
3 SRI NAGARAJ
S/O EROJI RAO
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/A NO.223, KAIKONDARANAHALIL
SAROJAPURA ROAD
BANGALORE
4 SRI PANKAJ KUMAR
S/O BHICOMCHAND
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/A NO.16, 2ND CROSS
MAGADI ROAD
BANGALORE
5 MR ALTHAF
S/O ABDUL RAZACK
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/A NO.830, T DASARAHALLI
BANGALORE
6 SRI MANJUNATH A C
S/O CHANDREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/A NO.18, VENUGOPALA NAGAR
KURUBANAHALLI
BANGALORE-58
7 SRI M SRINIVAS
S/O MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
9
NO.39, 45TH CROSS
PIPE LINE ROAD
J C NAGAR, BANGALORE
8 SMT LILY
W/O APPAJI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/A NO.156/8CB HULIMAVU
BHAGAVATHI LAYOUT
OPP RING ROAD BANGALORE .. APPELLANTS
(By Advocate Sri.C V KUMAR)
AND:
1 SRI SOMASHEKAR
S/O SRI RUDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
NO.238, MANJUNATHA NILAYA
5TH CROSS, 6TH BLOCK
MAHAGANAPATHI NAGARA
RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-10
2 BANGALORE AUTO DRIVERS SOUHARDHA CO-
OPERATIVE LTD
BY ITS PRESIDENT
NO.35, 2ND CROSS, 60 FEET ROAD
MAHAGANAPATHINAGAR
WEST OF CHORD ROAD
RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560010
3 MR SYED SAMIULLA
S/O LATE SRI SYED CHOTA SAB
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
NO.247, 4TH CROSS, VINOBHANAGARA
K G HALLI, BANGALORE-560045
4 STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
10
M S BUIDLING,
DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
5 COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR
TRANSPORT 5TH FLOOR
M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
6 THE REGAIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
BY ITS SECRETARY
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
JAYANAGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX
BANGALORE-5600011
7 THE ADDL SECRETARY
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
AND RTO, BANGALORE CENTRAL
KORAMANAGALA
BANGALORE-560034
8 THE ADDL SECRETARY
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
AND RTO, BANGALORE EAST
INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-560008
9 THE ADDL SECRETARY
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
AND RTO, BANGALORE WEST
RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560010
10 THE ADDL SECRETARY
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
AND RTO, BANGALORE NORTH
YESHWANTHPUR
BANGALORE-560022
11
11 THE ADDL SECRETARY
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
AND RTO, GNANAVHARATHI
BANGALORE-560056
12 THE ADDL SECRETARY
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
AND RTO, BANGALORE NORTH
ELECTRONIC CITY
BANGALORE-560100
13 THE ADDL SECRETARY
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
AND RTO, K R PURAM
BANGALORE-560036
14 THE ADDL SECRETARY
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
AND RTO, YELAHANKA
BANGALORE-560064
15 THE ADDL SECRETARY
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
AND RTO, NELAMANGALA
BANGALORE-562123
16 AKHILA KARNATAKA SHRAMAJEEVIGALA
KSHEMABHIVRUDHI SANGHA (REG)
NO,662, 2ND CROSS
27TH MAIN, NANDINI EXTENSION
BANGALORE-96
BY ITS PRESIDENT
17 MR MOHAMMED ZABEER
S/O MUSTAFA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT MUKTHINAGAR, PILLANNAGARDEN
3RD MAIN ROAD, K G HALLI
BANGALORE
12
18 M V THIRUNAVAKKARASU
S/O SELVAM
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT NO.899/1, 8TH MAIN ROAD
III STAGE, 3RD BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BANGALORE-560079
19 MR ABDUL KHADER
S/O ABDUL JABBAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.60, HAMEED KHAN GARDEN
KALASIPALYAM
BANGALORE-560002 .. RESPONDENTS
(ADVOCATE Sri.P.R.RAMESH FOR R-1 TO 3 & 17)
(SRI.B.VEERAPPA, AGA FOR R-4 TO 16)
WRIT APPEALS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.29453-455/2011 C/W
WP.NO.16639-641/2012(MV) DATED 01/06/2012.
These Appeals are coming on for preliminary
hearing this day, MANJUNATH J. delivered the
following:
J U D G M E N T
Legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge in WP Nos.29453-55/2011 C/w WP Nos.16639-41/2012 dated 1.6.2012 is called in question in these appeals. 13
2. Though writ petitioners have sought several reliefs in the writ petitions, during the course of arguments before the learned single Judge have confined to only one prayer which reads hereunder:
"To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing R-1 & 2 to ensure that no transfer of Auto-Rickshaw permits are permitted."
While considering the prayer, learned single Judge has held that such a mandamus cannot be issued. However, considering the background of the case, he has issued direction to the Government to ensure transfer of autorickshaw permits shall be inconsistent with the conditions imposed in notification dated 23.3.2011 which was produced as Annexure-G which regulates grant of auto-rickshaw permits and further direction was issued to the Government to take steps as expeditiously as possible to evolve the procedure regulating auto-rickshaw 14 permits by incorporating such conditions which are consistent with Annexure-G. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge, present appeals are filed.
3. Considering the growth of Bangalore City as there was a need to increase the grant of auto- rickshaw permits, Government by issuing a notification on 23.3.2011 as per Annexure-G relaxed prohibition in the City of Bangalore to issue fresh permits increasing the limit of auto-rickshaw permits to 1,25,000 subject to fulfillment of certain conditions by the applicants. As per notification, one of the condition is that permit can be granted to an applicant who is having driving licence who does not possess any auto-rickshaw with permit and he is also required to produce certain documents for the purpose of address proof. From looking into Annexure-G, it is clear that State of Karnataka has issued notification to ensure that 15 new permit shall be permitted to eligible applicants and such permits shall not be granted to ineligible persons to avoid selling of permit in block market as permits were being sold for a sum of Rs.30,000/- to 35,000/- and several persons were involved in such block-marketing business and to ensure that eligible applicants shall alone are entitled to have permits and to prevent transfer of permits to ineligible persons, therefore writ petitions were filed by the petitioners to issue a writ of mandamus. Learned single Judge having held that such a writ is not maintainable and such a direction cannot be issued considering the background in which Annexure-G has come into existence directed the Government to ensure the transfer of auto-rickshaw permits only to eligible persons. While doing so, learned single Judge has directed the Government to strictly follow the conditions imposed in the notification dated 16 23.3.2011 and to evolve procedure to regulate auto-rickshaw permits with the above said direction. Aggrieved by the conditions imposed by the learned single Judge and contending that the conditions directed and the prayer made therein, these appeals are filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that Annexure-G notification dated 23.3.2011 has been issued by the Government governing the grant of new permits in excess of 85,000 permits which are already in existence in Bangalore City and therefore condition imposed for grant of permit shall not be the criteria or guide-line for transfer of permit. In the circumstances, they request the court to set aside the order of the learned single Judge in directing the Government to implement the terms and conditions of Annexure-G while considering the applications for transfer of auto-rickshaw permits. They further contend that such conditions cannot be 17 imposed in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s RAVI ROADWAYS Vs. ASIA BI AND OTHERS [AIR 1970 S.C.-1241]. Per contra, counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and the learned Govt. Advocate contends that even though Annexure-G notification dated 23.3.2011 has been issued by the Government to consider the persons who are eligible for allotment of new permits and the issuance of such direction by the learned single Judge cannot be held to be illegal because a person who is not eligible to get a new permit cannot be permitted to get the permit transferred from the permit holder who has acquired permit in terms of Annexure-G as it amounts to allowing ineligible persons to acquire the permits and which would take away the very object of issuing notification as per Annexure-G to regulate the manner in which new permits are to be issued to the eligible 18 persons, therefore they contend that the order of the learned single Judge cannot be find fault with. They further contend that even the conditions imposed under Annexure-G were also there in the earlier notification while issuing permits increasing quota from 75000 to 80000. Therefore, the appellants cannot contend that the learned single Judge has committed an error in imposing such condition while transferring the permit. In the circumstances, they request the court to dismiss the appeals.
5. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the order of the learned single Judge requires to be modified for the following reasons: After considering the judgment of the learned single Judge this court cannot find fault with the direction issued by the learned single Judge to formulate rules or guide-lines for transfer of permit of auto- rickshaw to the eligible transferee. But the 19 only contention of the appellants before us is that the terms and conditions of Annexure-G cannot be made applicable to the case of transfer of permit of auto-rickshaw.
6. The fact remains that earlier also when the quota was increased from 75000 to 80000, such a condition was imposed. While issuance of permit authorities have been guided in the manner in which permits have to be granted and when once a permit is obtained by eligible applicant, no court can say that he is entitled to sell or transfer such permit to a person who is ineligible to secure a permit. In other words, such action would amount to taking away the object of framing of the Rules and Guidelines as per Annexure-G and even earlier notification which was issued while enhancing the permit from 75000 to 80000. At best, the appellants can contend that the very same terms and conditions of Annexure-G should not have been included by 20 the learned single Judge while passing an order in issuing direction to the Government the manner in which applications for transfer of auto-rickshaw permit can be considered by the authorities. We see some force in the arguments of the counsel appearing for the appellants. This court can only direct the Government to ensure that ineligible persons shall not get any permit transferred and it is for the Government the manner in which conditions are to be imposed. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, Government shall ensure that no ineligible person shall get the transfer of auto-rickshaw permit.
7. In the circumstances, we allow these appeals in part. We modify the order passed by the learned single Judge by confirming the direction issued to take necessary steps to evolve a procedure regulating the procedure to transfer auto-rickshaw permits. However, we 21 hold that while evolving the procedure to regulate the procedure of transfer of auto- rickshaw permit, State Government shall ensure that no ineligible persons to secure permit, is entitled for transfer of auto-rickshaw permit. With the above modification, the order of the learned single Judge is confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
R/010912