Karnataka High Court
Sri J V Shiva Ganesh vs The Secretary Karnataka State ... on 29 July, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DATED THIS mm 29%! DAY OF' JULY_j:3U(§'3_ .'.,:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICERAM
wan' PETFFION NO .17.929VOF"" 1; U
B
SR1 J V SI-IIVA C3-_A;N.E:3H:.L%k ;
S/O.SRI.J.VENKAE?AC AHg'.\
AGED ABOUT 36- "{E:2'5RS, =,_ 2 " "
PROP':M;M.BALAJI MOTORS; ..
MADANAPALLI,
CHUPQR 1r;1$*:R1c:r. ' f PE'I'I'I'IONER.
(By Sri. 3%}; GUPTA, ADV.)
. THESECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE
AU'I'HORITY
M.S§E3UH.DING, DRAMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
X EAPIGAIDRE.-O1.
Z SR1 D L SADASHIVA REDDY
S/O.SRI LAKSHMANA REDDY,
= AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, SUVARNAMUKHI
EXPRESS, NO.60'7, 10TH CROSS,
7TH BLOCK WEST JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE- 1 1 .
{By Sri: s v KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV. FOR C/R2)
,fl;:*K
.. . RESPONDENTS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER 226 AND 227 09 'I'HE coNs'm*U'r1oN PRAYING T0 QUASH THE ORBERS Ca? 4% PASSED ON D'r.13.12.2oo6, MARKED A8.., D AND THE ORDER OF 'I'HE'" KARE'-QATAKA STATE e TRANSPORT APPELLATE 'I'I21BI,INAL*. "PASSED REVISION PETITION No.50 Ann '51/"07, ,:rr.15'I'H_ APRIL, 2008 MARIE!) ANJH;-J, THIS PETITION, comiive' on FOR: Pi2Eifm1NARY HEARING, THIS DAY THE FOLLOWING: e "1i"s'ee<i"%for preliminary hearing, with ' ed counsel for the parties, is fml v_ of by this order.
leetitioner and the 2941 respondent are permit on the route, of which a. portion is coiamgzg between Chikkaballapur to Madanapalli, for a V. of 150 lens. The 2114 rcspondcnfls Stage permit No.20/62»-63 was varied for the route ' V' " fmm Cuddappah to Bangalore and thcreafterwards extended from Cuddappah to Proddatur and back of M which the route between Madanapalli to in the State of Andhra interstate agreement entemd mm of Andhra Pradesh and L' the extended portion is 106 kms., as menfiofieo Appendix»-"A" to the amemenz aw: 2s«oWs. mm to the decision of" case of GAJRAJ amen star: ' APPELLATE the 1st respondent «-
KSTA, mom,' up the said permit into two 20/A/62~63 and 20/B/62-63 L' 211" rospondont to operate on the route V galore and back to perform one round trip day, per permit, 011 Single point tax, basis. A Tfiésc permits, were renewed by orders dated 18- 12-
" 2006 Anne-xures - 'C' 83 'D', in Subject No.STA.6/Renewal/115/O6-O7 and 116/2006-7 of the M 5.2 ' AIR 1997 SC 412 4 Secxetary, Karnataka State Transport Authority (for short 'KSTAj as a delegatee of the KSTA under" -..I?l11le 56(c)(iii) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles The petitioner, claiming to be a rival 0' as portion of the route is common;
the orders Annexures "CF? 0' secured the endorsements 18-- V "E" and "F", and Ii1§:'d._Re§ioioe..1V_I§etition'vNoe.50/2007 and 5.1 to condone the delay of two*.days Ifieftitions. The Karnataka State Bangalore, for short by order dated 22-09-2007, allowed oondoned the delay and is final and the parties. Before the KSTAT. the 2m msporidcot advanced a plea that the petitioner had no ":0: standi to maintain the Revision Petitions calling in V. Vdquestion the renewals of the permits, in addition that the operating of round trip per day on Single point tax basis. as permitted in each of the stage carriage permits M V is according to the scheme in the dated 28-08-1975 and the supplemefitaxyhiii which came into force from 1.4-1<m as vx%e11&ee concluded agreement . _ AA
3. An of eI'iier <v3ated 16-
04-2008 the KSTAT recorded a tfiaeti locus standi to challenge. eofibtrm, accepted the STA dated 7-3- QOO6 of the State of Andhra Tthe counter siglaturc over the " accordance with the interstate to supra and ascoordmgly' , dismissed :'tl1e revision petitions. Hence, this writ
4. Facts not being in dispute, that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent operate on a common route between Chickbellapur and Madanapalli, a distance of M 'L! effect from 1-4- 1979 provided for one round trip fro) for one vehicle per day, as the limitation, in not noticing that the two T' V' operating two round trips with in excess of what was provided {die 'V pp
7. Clause 1(1)) or theVAp.Ir tt'e1fs'e;tc Agxwcmént dated 28--O8- 1975 permitted :the'-- Atltllority of the State concerned __to part of the mtersgtete eistelusivelyr in that state in respectof' B3} the operator of that state, thougllpp uo1'7'i:nireretatc routes where variation is . " states ought to be decided by Authorities by mutual agreements, to the principle of mrity of service
8. Clause (e) of (VII) of the very same ag;rwent providing for the eventuality of problems arising in respect of existing interstate permits duly counter-
M 9 signed by the authorities concerned by both etates because of its nominclusion in the agreement its resolution by the Transport eonstfltaxion with each other.
9. Neither of the aforesaie'-..V the case of the 2:14 ' L' with an increase in the ve1'1ieiee_:*t6"-epera;fe~envv'§tl1e mute in excess of the permitted" '% __ ' for {me vehicle ' 10: of the STA, Hyderabad, in the 21-05-2004 addressed to the count:er--signw the permits for extended port:'ioe;-2: from Proddatur to Cuddapah on Single point "ii that by itself, and nothing more, can increase the ' __'number of vehicles or the trips, in excess of what is provided in the interstate agreement of the year 197 5 and the supplementary agreement of the year 1979. UK 10 Thus, the KSTAT though having extracted portions of the interstate agreements, fef.-1:
error in accepting the STA, Hydembad without applying its mind lifiiitefiefg the interstate agreements" -the ef' renewal of permits.
1 1. KSTAT, without app1ieVatie:{'_j{A tc consider relevant material and et eonc1usions to dismiss the Revision Petifjene, by the order impugned which is e u~'¥i~?-=isAtama'% T1' 'bic-
12', vTfeVA.'aV pointed question of the Court to Sri. S.V. Krielzeesvéamy, learned counsel for the 211*' respondent A 5.' whether the interstate agreements of the years V. '£975 and 1979 provided for four single trips with two vehicles for the extended route in the state of Andhra Pradesh, learned counsel submits that the 211*' M 11 respondent has been operating the services the year 1979. This submission by the "ie not an answer, to the question posed by that as it may, the interstate > 1975 and the supplementary 1979 as extracted by t11e""i4.'ES'~'I'AT,. me maximum number is one round trip and only one velflole; .?the matter, the petitioner had"?a1fo11g:ht :m5me :f1'ie'Vi.11egaV»:é lity perpetuated by t1iéAautt1oi9iiieeL: renewal of two permits in favour of the VZII5 to operate services with two c;iee*ss..._of that limited by the scheme in the ' The observations of the Full Be"n¢h in the case of K.8.R.T.C. & ORB. vs; R. ummawam & 0123.2 following the 4" decision of the Apex Court in R. VENKATESHAM sT§HE'I'PY vs. THE STATE 01? KARNATAKA 85 ores in 9 ILR 2003 KAR 3562 12 C.A.No.'7371/ 1996 D1). l6-01-2003 in the circumstances, is apposite:
'2l. It will be appmpljiatc 1 relevant para of the judgI;aent"dated'i"16_i-0 2003 rendered in R. CHETTY' 5 case:
"Learned, A ' iox"
appellant by the High Cou:tvwaa.e11mneo1.1«$t, as the the conditions of by adding one more any substance in the 63 of the Repealed Act ' V' pz?ov*i(jes no vehicle can be allowed to _ inter-state route unless there is a agreement between the two States for number of vehicles and trips to A " operated on the inter-State route by two A 'T or more States and published in the A respective Gazettes. It is not disputed that the said agreement provided for two permits having one return trip each fiom each state and since there were already two return trips W 13 being operated from the side of Karl? ../if _ there was no scope for further "of additional return trip. tn the appellant could not variation in peI'mits"tVt§y additional return trip on the inter;St,xt1i:::VVrotite. Consequentiy, .we_ merit in the appeal. .It..i_$» dismissed. There no o1*dzer"ae:Vte'eoets."' eaneet but be said that the permtte respondent to operate services' on the u1*oiit::e' in question, in the State of PIj_adeei'1,...without there being scope to increase ' trips or the number of vehicles, in the aeents, is eonumy to rule of lave .. £2" respondent having operated the services V' ti almost three decades from the year 1979 onwards, this Court enquired with the learned eounsel for the 21"
respondent as to What was the gross profits out of the operation of said services, to which Sri. S.V. W 14 Krishnaswamy, learned counsel submits instructions in that rewrd.
14. It appears from the dated 7-3-2003, the Stateefofx Pradesh have ooncljoded provision is made 0 ;ifo':.1x3.ci trips from Cuddapah to _:Bs~;I1ge_Lloi'e' igmg by Karnataka operators This 3 operation. The of trips, and not the nu31;:i3er.of'4ia*e_,¥v1_i5cies,.'it for the KSTA to xeeonsider the . the two permits to the 2"' ~ in the result, this Writ petition is allowed. The A ":0 dated 16-04-2008 Annexure-"J" of the KSTAT is %% eiuashed. The Revision Petition 2403.50 & 51/2007 filed by the petitioner are allowed. The renewal of permits by order dated 18-12-2006 Annexures "C" and "D" are UK 15 quashed, and the pmceeding remitted for afresh over the 2115 respondent'; appliceafidrx V of the two permits, aficr opportunity of hearing 2"="-'- respondent and to aVA(*:<:c)rda11c<:-2 with law, in the made supra and in oompliggimc gated 7 -3-2008 a concludpd of Karnataka and 'stick; time the STA takes a
- dccisii311,'--the permitted to operate one round _\Vifl'lvVvf)I'l;§A}'i3:'El:::ii3I€ per day. the the 2" respondent is costs of Rs.5,000/- payable to the
1.:'>et'ié:ion_<=.*..1"'.'f I § . % sal-
judge