Karnataka High Court
K Mir Akram vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2010
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6"'I)AY OF AUGUST,
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AN.AN[) IsYIII?I]gI3I:I3y I II A
WRIT PETITION N0. 793_Of?~2()0$'AA€MV")- 7
WRIT PETITION I\?O'.4--..EI86 OF 2008 I1vI'*~.()-.II,I
IN WRIT PETITION NO, 793 OF..i2'Q§)8'{MVI.' 'I «
BETWEEN:
1.
K. Mir AImIm,._ _ .
Aged E'
S/0 Late I3}.-. VNHI'3':f\ZE1[{71-, _ ' " '
I>:Iop:I De¢5c_an 'e;~vi_ce," A
No.50,' Kh£I2i:"SITc§;I;I~.I_ ._ I
Baisavanagudi'; V. V'
BangéI!QTe.v-- 560
"3'«:SIff'.Tf'. Shanti « _____ .. s
;I'bQut 40 years,
E' = . W259' ':'S_Ti; Manohar,
%2II'1'2I,IA2;mI'a Buiiding,
VKa]_:1s'I§3u;I}j1zI,
Ba--hgaiijre -- 560 002.
...PETITIONERS
'AA5_hriVI"Puthige R. Ramesh, Advocate)
.x'3x..1§T..1..3...I.
The. State of Karnataka
By its Secretary,
Transport Department,
M.S. Building,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
D. Tangaraj, IAS
(Deleted as per Order dated'v'VC'i'5.:_:'d§
Karnataka State Road':T1'a::1sp§}1ft. " _
Corporation, _
By its Managing Director; V
Central oamesttta 1<.éH. u D '
Banga_1_ore.3-- __
State tom mil "i.'§§IVVad._:j' t C
By its Sccretéij-'y}'t _
Home
Che tahaui ?- .600. V .
"3'~Sta_te E_xpreaS's «'I7.1i21t2sp()rt Corporation
(Ta;:u'1et;tdu) Ltd.
~ Managing Director,
._ VPaivlz{\_za__r1
' VChennaiV_v=' 600 002.
S'. .S. Motor Service,
' *=,_By"its Managing Director,
* --_ MC. Ananthashankar, -
Anekal,
Bangaiore Rurai District.
$
0,08)"
K. Anantharaju,
Major,
Prop: Madhusudan Motor Service.
Kolar Main Road,
Kolar -- 563 IOE.
Selvanathan, Major
Bus Operator,
Main Road,
K.G.F.,
Koiar District.
Ramakanya Devi,
Major,
W/o Late Sri. D.P. Sharma,
Sharma Transport, --- i
A.V. Road, Kalasipaiiy-a,
Bangalore -- 560 002*.' '
S/o'«I<a1]iyappaa,'~.
Ajjipii.H_'_aii§'.OSti, _ "
_Ko11ega'1 Tq.',-
.. «.3-,Cha'marajanaga_r__District.
.i " --. .P;N}'~N'agé:ndra,
. - Major,' - . ,
. i"voProp:'-Shaahkar Vittal Bus Service,
12,'Ka.Veri N ilaya.
D Street, Fort,
so , Bangalore M 560 002.
Venkataswamy Reddy,
Aged about 78 years,
13.
.1. 4.
1.5.
S/o Gunjur Thimmaiah,
Prop: Vinayaka Motor Service,
A.V. Road,
Bangalore * 560 002.
Hanume Gowda,
Major,
Prop: LakshmiSaraswathi
Motor Service,
S/o H.C. Narayanappa,
Dispensary Road,
Kaiasipaiya,
Bangalole * 560 OU2.__
Kaiaivani Ammai, Maj'o1f_, " . _
Prop: Bhar21_ii':i.__Mo£.o1*'SeryEce;,}.._
Ashok N;ig2iIfr....- '
Banga}o'1'€i '
M. GTa'ne.s{h, M"éj'{5:_._ ' ' ' »
S/.0 Muzhusvwanme»
20/}, S'wa1'r1y_ Co'mp'ie_>{;.
A.v.'R._o'ad., Kalasip'aIy.a,
5 B3r1ga1or*e, {S60 O02.
" 'V V S1'e_Khader-gab,
%Jzii'n"'Ten1_'o'i~e' Road,
V Vis_hi/eemvarapuram,
Ba-ngariore * 560 004'.
o---._Ja i"'Vijai Bhupathy. Major,
_,--Prop: Moder Travels,
Shani-car Mutt Road,
Mysore * 575 00!.
18. GM. Aswath Reddy, Major,
S/o Muniswamy Redcly,
Prop: Jai Bharath Motor Service,
Gunjur, Via Varthur
Bangalore Rural Sistrict. _
(By Shri. KM. Shivayogiswamy, High Court Goveriitttieiltt Pleader
for Respondent No.1, Shri. B.V.S. Rat), Advocate.;fotf"aRespondeVi1t
NO.3, Shri. B.N. Jayadeva, Advoc:atelwforfRespondent'No..5--,,Sl<1fi.
B. Prabhudevaru, Advocate for Respondent "Sihri.t C.V.p
Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.1 'l,"l3 and *B.R.S.- A
Gupta, Advocate for Respondent No.8 & 14, 'Sl§r'i.' Achar,
Advocate for Respondent, 'No.7 !.,.7',-.S"i'~1.rAi. S.V.'vKris'nnaswa1ny,
Advocate for Responder1t,_i\'o.6-i. 16 and Respondent
No.4, Respondent No. 10 are Servedi' ..
eaaeakf,
This iV\?v'tiiv't_ Peii;iit'io_n"».,i's filedwvunder Article 226 of the
Constitution of.lneia,upray'ing*-t.o' set-aside the order the Inter State
Agreement "as 'notiiiied'*~.__i"ri«.="the Notification bearing No.
SARIE/1812/SAEPA 2006 dated 7"' January, 2008 at Annexure--A
and etc.-, A *
;_§1.__.wt§u'i;~e*r1T1oNNo.686 OF 2008 (MV)
A
_ R. Ra'nga--natha Reddy,
~ .. ,. V'-Aged about 65 years,
'' igSl'o*Late R. Rama Recldy,
* T 14"" Cross, 7" Main,
~ Wilson Garden,
Bangalore W 560 027. ...PETlTlONER
AND:
The State of KZi1'I1Zl{8.k£1
By its Secretary,
Transport Department,
MS. Building,
Dr. BR. Ambedkar Road,
Bangalore --- 560 001.
D. Tangaraj, IAS
(Deleted as per Orc{et=~
Karnataka State Road..Trs1nsVpotfi D D
Corpor2rti_o.n,a ' V
By its Di'reC:':or, 'V V' D
Central Off-i.ee$',°--VK,H--.{jRoad," _ »
Ba_ngalore''-*-'5V6O027,'"--A V of
State-.of ' V. '
Byits 'Secretary,' V. "
Home ..Department," V.
Chennai cocoons.
Express Transport Corporation
' 'V V ('fr3ti1i1"'Nadu) Ltd.
V.B"y .i"t_;V, _1\/}2i:tv1Va'ging Director,
V Pa§]ava.r_trSz1Iz1i,
Clzennzii ---- 600 002.
' S.vVK.M.S. Motor Service,
_,-'By its Managing Director,
C. Ananthashankar,
Anekal,
Z
1.0.
t'\.y,, = ~
Bangalore Rural District.
K. Anzmtharaju,
Major.
Prop: Madhusucian Motor Service,
Kolar Main Road,
Ko1ar--563 I01.
Seivanathan, Major
Bus Operator,
Main Road,
K.G.F.,
Kolar District.
Ramakanya Devi,
Major, '
Sharrrra"'"I"1'2;r1§pfj-rt,' _ H
A-Vr,,R0afir» ii'-i=:'%..1?'.5iii?.€"'1§/:.iEi'§ M . ,
K.iTh1:«umu:;hgr,,rMaia.
S/0 Ka§iiyappan,'A._ " .
; AjjLipu1'a P.os'r,~ "
"i'«:Ko_11eg,a1 Tql,' « ..... .. e
Ch3'inaraj_anagar District.
VP§'i'éif"'}\,.Fagéx:t}ra,
Major," '
Prop: Shankar Vitta] Bus Service,
I"2,__ Kaveri Nilaya,
' ._D Street, Fort,
-- _,-Bangalore -- 560 002.
G.T. Venkataswamy Reddy,
'5'
W10 Late_"Srr'i",;VT.,D.P. ishag-ma, V A'
13.
14.
Aged about 78 years,
S/o Gunjur Thimmaiah,
Prop: Vinayaka Motor Service,
A.V. Road,
Bangalore -- 560 002.
Hanume Gowda,
Major,
Prop: LakshmiSaraswathi
Motor Service,
S/0 H.C. Narayanappa,
Dispensary Road,
Kaiasipalya,
Bangalore -- 560 002.
Kalaivani Ammai, Major', 0'
Prop: Bharathi Motor .Ser.\/ice, "
Ashok
Ganesh, 'M-a%j'or,, 0 . '
20/ 1 , Swamy mp:e,;:,';
Road, Ka'lasipa1ya,
ji ' ':'«:Bar}ga.}_ore --"56.0___002.
' j e K. Major,
'S/('J K~§1ade'I'Sab.
0Jain_ Terjtfile Road.
Vi~3hveShwarapu1'a:11,
Bangalore -- 560 004.
. Vijai Bhupathy, Major,
Prop: Moder Travels,
Shankar Mutt Road,
3
Mysore -- 575 001.
18. GJVI. Aswath Reddy, Major,
S/0 Muniswamy Raddy,
Prop: Jai Bharath Motor Service,
Gunjur, Via Varthur
Bangalore Rural District.
(By Shri. C.V. Kumar, Advocate for"aRes;'po.nde'11t_ii'§iO.lili:a--ndi'i1.§_S,
.. ._RE;SiI?QtSI'£§E-N'1"S' t as
Shri. B. Prabhudevaru, Advocate for Re'spo--ndentjN"o,A9;' Shrig §<Z.i\i/lg
Shivayogiswamy, Advocate for _R'e..spond'ent NO'..l, M.R.\r'~.U
Achar, Advocate for Respondentlxlo. Tiand"-i7,K:Sh1'i. B.N.
Jayadeva, Advocate for Res-pontleia NC)'.5v,.. Shri. S.V.
Krishnaswamy, Advocateaifor RespoVnd.eat"'NAo.6, 12, 15 and 16,
Shri. NE. Nagesh, Advocate'forv.iR§:spond'eVnt No.2, Respondent
NO.4 Served). .. '-
'taasaxg "
Ti*1iisiiiiVv'.:iiE_V P<'i3i:ftiiiit)ii1'».Vi.iS filieidwiunder Article 226 of the
Constitution ofInciija,prayi.ng*to' set-aside the order the Inter State
Agreement as 'noti_t'ied"~.__i'n."the Notification bearing No.
SARIE/l8l}'S'AEPA .2006 dated 7"' January, 2008 at Annexure--A
and et_.«.;.», _ A *
_ "petitions having been heard and reserved on
L 15.()6v.2Gv.14Oia'r'idTcoming on for pronouncement of orders this day,
ihe"C_ou2""i; de.l_iverc-'d the follovving:~
ORDER
A. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the _i respoiidents.
é'> IO
2. The brief facts that are pertinent to dispose of these petitions are as follows:-
In WP 793/2008, the petitioners are said to of a Stage Carriage Permit on the inter»state rtiateplsgfiangaéltire'tgxi Hosur Cattle Farm and Bangalore to[Denkanj.iko_ttai,' 'r_els~p'ec_tlilx{el)". The first respondent is the State of l(arnat2ikefe't'."i' _s§eCond:°. respondent is the Principal S€Ciil'll(",-T,£:t!"j,-',,_ to t'l~..ei_l department of transport, who was alst)""thle.,exp~eel'ficlie-l,[VC,lhairmz1n of the State Transport Undertakings (hereinaftenreferredito as ' the STUS' for brevity)!' The'.ilV§i_rdlt;{:spoln(lei1t islieaeet' the STUs in the State of Karnatal<la«,V The 'fon'rth_ires_pondent is the State of Tamil Nadu. Whileahe filth..:respondentl:is one of the srus of the State of Tamil The other respondents are private operators. l* It . pisiithe contention on behalf of the petitioners that the T"~.t.._l_"».third respondent was the sole STU of the State of Karnataka. T.l'E_leweiver, it is now constituted of three undertakings namely, the e...Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, North--West 5 Karnataka Road Transport Corporation and North--East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation. In terms of Section the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as. Ifthei for brevity), which corresponds to Section_88(5')' Motor Vehicies Act, 1939 (hereinaftei':.refe_r1*ed to~.a;s brevity), the States of Ka1'natai{a,:v4iain_d Ta'm,i__1 Nfitdti entered'. into an interstate agreement as i973, which isreferred to in the petition as the principai,iagreeinen_t, ~T_h,is was supplemented as on 7.6.i975,,-- to.,_Vincorporate:.'changes.,wa§'ranted by efflux of time and there was,.a 'furthe--r,'jvsa'p--p]em'entai agreement notified on l.iO.20C'.7. ObjeiC'ti.ofn,:s'we'iie¥i'ri-vited to the said notification and the petitioner had, siubrnitted._his:_it3bjections, wen within the prescribed A' timegflone' of the 'niain__objections was that the second respondent, was._,tihe;'e.bai--1fman of the STU of the Karnataka State should not the proceedings, at which the basis would be i'i.conside'i'ir1g the benefits to be conferred on the STUS. inspite of _sarne, the second respondent did participate in the proceedings. , petitioners had filed a Wri»g)etiti0n before this court seeking consideration of his representation, which was for inclusion of the route ~» Bangalore to Coimbatore, in the interstate -«a'gre'e_m--eAnt. That petition was disposed of with a direction conTsiderit'iiei". representation of the petitioners. rneanytthile} the» proceedings in respect of the third supplemental iav_gre*e1*nei*:.t"wpereu conducted, with the second respionident in "tl.1i.e"'C.hair.7_ This was specifically questioned Vjpggg/20979 which according tothe on the date the present petition llimejanwhile, the second and the agreement has attainedgifina'lity."lx':1-ti'is'that'"--.agreen1ent which is sought to be challenged"onliseveiral grountfls.
_;i'insofai"'a3..W_Pv686/2008 is concerned, the same is aiso 't'i.l.ed~by*alpevtition__er, who claim to hold Stage Carriage Permits in reispeict of thei__ii'iterstt1te route ~ Bangalore to Coimbatore valid up ifito 30.121311, alleging the same infirrnities insofar the fina_li_s§ation of the third supplemental agreement is concerned. 8 E3
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, .8"-,while elaborating on the grounds raised would contend..~«.t--hat«..__Sect:i'on 88(5) of the Act, falling under Chapter-V, ct)n_fe..rs_:}3ovvers8._on1 tiieui State Governments to enter into 1'ec:i_pror;aslAfiagreementsu themselves, keeping in mind the'«--intei'e'st_o'f the 2traveléligngglipulblicllv and to ensure a coordinated Section 88(1) of the Act contemplates V Section 72 of the Act by the ti*a_nsport not be valid in another isfllcountersigned by the transportaluthoi/itfiielsiigéf' However, the requirement of not required to be followed if suchA.permits'are'granted pursuant to an interstate agreement Senteired Eiritc)lVd'betweenll'the said States. One other advantage of the 8"'perLr'_1_1it 'oe:i"n,g cove'red under an interstate agreement is that, it is sufficient 'for'the holder to pay motor vehicle tax to the home ._:State, uiiiike normal requirement of paying such tax to both the States. Further, having regard to the law as laid down by the apex 3 14 Court in the case of As/zwin Kumar vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1999 SC 3888, a permit on an interstate state route cannot beigrstnted unless the route is covered by an interstate agreeme_n't';" t heisearep multiple advantages that would apply toma route"Co--vered"VunCle1'an= . 88 interstate agreement. It is pointed"i:4ou:"'L;at 'in "~te1'ins :"iof'?:he agreement, there are more than fresh igrants _rhadei_i'1'1favour oft 8 the STUS of Karnataka and 'i"am.i.l:'Nad--~u, whereas a single fresh grant is made in favou_r"oi°iprivaleoperators, though the benefits have (:0nf:3:ii're§cli_:Qsn private operators, which were in respelctiof were earlier granted to the rn.
It isll"i1t;?ti1erlllpoliiiptedtlout that though an STU would be
- V. p_ entitled for preferent«ia_i treatment, under the provisions of Chapter VI of it is not contempiated under the provisions of V_ioiii:t3i}el:MV Act. in that background, the participation of "-the Pririci_pal Secretary of the transport department, who was also as the Chairman of the STU, occupying the chair at the V. .proceedings to hear the objections in respect of the supplemental Z 15 agreement, are vitiated on the ground of bias. The other contention is that the proceedings conducted by the Principal Secretary to the transport department, cannot be construed as proceedings conducted by the State Government.
emphasized that the apparent benefits conf'erred'Vo:n even though the said undertakings were' not ,_entitled.:to-haveihariy preferential treatment under the; provisionisi. of Ch'ilipteriV "of"the'a MV Act, would also vitiate the proceedings. if '-
It is the further grie_i}ance.'_fo'fi.thie~«petiitioners that insofar as some of the private operato_rs. are vi.pcon'ceVr'ne,d;" inspite of their permits khaviiig.Vbeen"set'*as'i'de' or directed to be cancelled in judicial profce_efdi,ngs._ tfhey been included in the agreement. _In regard, thedearned counsel for the petitioner has 'placed re.liance li'aifge_ number of authorities.
6,12,l5 and 16 have filed statement of i'i.objections":.to contend that the petitioners in WP 793/2008 have V"-iinco_rre,'ctly contended that they are holding Stage Carriage Permits 5 16 and if they are not holding any such inter--state permits, they are not entitled for any relief in the writ petition. Henvceti,._lin_ the absence of any material piaced before the court, ti§i"sul;is't--anti~a__te_ their contention, it wouid be misleading on""ti'1e::'_part. of t_he"x Qetitioners to seek to chailenge the inilillgniedt.:§otiific'at.lon.l '
6. The second responctentl'i'h,ais', in turrz, fiied statement of objections to contend that.__he serv'in.g.as'«a Principal Secretary- to the transport departinent..o.fithe {3overrimeirtti._of Karnataka at the relevant points 3-of §ti'injre.. and _the_...lpjroposal'ii to enter into third supplemenittfl'agreexnent _iivri.:tlt theH"S"tate of Tamil Nadu was in terms of 'Section Act and even before issuing the draft notification, there were severai discussions between the two lStateli"Tra"nSP§1t.'authorities and it is after a consensus was arrived at,thatftheiidraftinotification was published inviting objections. During November 2007, the Government of Karnataka was "-Ti'L1.n'clt3.r_A'i.--'the Governor's rule and in view of the change of u.G.overnment, he was the Chairman, Karnataka State Road 8 18 private operators since only a handful of private operators have been included in the agreement is not Correct, since admhiitte-dly there are private operators who have been incl_1_:§led*« ri:;!f_3eg_ agree ment.
Insofar as the allegation of biaéeis1'¢o~2'icern_ed,pthei liearni-ed counsel for respondent no.2 pl21ees_vireliance' orlat_hev-de"eiS'ion "of the" V apex Court in Delhi Fit3.at1L'e Ancmd, (2004)(]1) SCC 625 and pliaiicges following passage therein:-
'i.li?'(,l!ii:?ltlfI ct judge in h.t'.v own c'ait,s'e," Cam to cases where the person c'()t1c'iem'ec1' Ila: ti.iAi,t9ei{S'r.1Vtttziil interest or has' himxelji _a'lrtegd_y' tlwze' mrhe or taken. at dec't'.s't'tm in the matter i€'t)r;_.Aeerr2teti. A/Iiere'f_3f'i9ecczLt.ve cm r)_[f'iee oft: corporation
-tilt tb..be the ctttIl20rit_y, d(')e.\' not by it.s'elf bring the clocrrine 'no man. can be ct 'jutige in "=..l2i.s' V,__.-du3v.=<tVii i"ctLtl\'c1.' For that u'0c'trz't'z.e to come mm play it ttz"Lt..;\'t3 be .s'I't0wtt that the Qfficer corteemed imx ct '}'?€I'.S'()IIal biax or c.'0rtne.c'{t'0Iz or at p(3I'.\'()i'lCll t't'tIere.vI or "has ])€i'.S'()I1£1[1}? acted in the matter concerned cmcl/or % hm' ctlrectcb' taken a dec':'.s'imI one way or the other whirl: he may he in.Ier'e.s'Iea' in .s'uppor'Iir1g. ' And would contend that merely because he has presideid"-o:ve'ifv,4a meeting to finalise the third supplemental ag1'eeme_nt, . the"
does not stand vitiated unless specific; eividencie is'p1aced,vb'e'fore the court that the second respondent had. any persginapi"interestuin'p the operation of the STU, in theiidec'i'si'on reiied upon by the petiti_oners in :«{g'_,V'~1i(');"zp of Iririzhz, 1970 SC 150, could have been "pressed involved the case of a member the itsea' being one of the applicants, and theirefoie, thiepersonal interest of the member was involved, whiehiwas n_oti't_hie«circumstance in the case on hand. it 'His aisohpoiented outiiithat-«the petitioner's permit was not a saved "permi_tV. ..itheirefore, even according to the petitioner, the excliuséiion vo.f'thei petitioner's permit is the subject matter of
-'««.__iproceediirivg_s' before the apex court and it cannot be said that it was _b_t,--r'virf.aie of the participation of the second respondent that he has "been deprived of any such right.
5 20 The allegation that the participation of the second respondent vitiated the proceedings is no longer 1*eisjV...._i:zreg;=z;~ the Supreme Court had occasion to considerf-an'--.i_ide_ntical._ circumstance in Kondala Ran us.
wherein the participation of a minister in_approv.ingj;t.he sc_hen'1e_7 under section 99 while being the held not to vitiate the decision to 'It is also pointed out that though the petitioner"ha:d; questioning the very " -..se.condiiirespondent in those court had not chosen to restrain from participating in those proceedings. Insofaisesais the proceedings itself are concerned, it is .e't'nphiasi.zetil'*thiatthe seiieral proposals and suggestions made by the as well as the general public were taken into _consid'erati--__on ~b'efore finalising the draft Notification and hence, iiea.§l_egati'on is baseless and unfair in seeking to challenge the ._iisaii'd-Vnotification on the grounds urged. S
7. The fifth respondent has also filed statement of objections to contend that the petitioner has not indicated.4'as_ to how he is an aggrieved party and there is no indication . he would be entitled to be granted a permit in-breispect of Vroutesi"
covered by the inter--state agreement vnvhich: isiiu1ider"chai1en§zfit is the contention of the said resppondent thatthe'-.:ro'ute's~are all"
notified routes, in respectzof whi.-ch, permit ca'n"ibe-tgranted to private operators and hence, thierigiijs ;'ab_so'ltiitei"yf_no scope for the petitioner to secure'aVp:"{>erm_'_it under 'ot'..th_efi routes. Further, the State of Tarhipl several schemes making provision,fo--r by the STUS of State of Tamil Nadu and iA_par;t..'a'froin the existing private operators 'Vwho_"1iave__continueidto.__operate with valid permits in respect of i'=.iiitei"state'-routes;' which schemes have been published with prior concurrence""ofiinthe Central Government and there are also area ~=,_"s.chemes which are published, restricting the operation of services, _dc-n"thef?routes lying in the respective revenue districts of Tamil = Nadu, for exclusive operation by the STUS of Tamil Nadu and ?'s' 22 Karnataka and existing private operators who are operating on valid permits. in the light ofthose schemes, there is also no scope for the petitioners or for any other operator to be granted..;i'~per;_nit afresh, even if a fresh route is opened up under__--ti1e ~ agreement and therefore, the petitioner_is~n_o_t entitled' »an'y.ireVlief. The petition is also bad for non~joinlder niil Nadu, who are entitled to be gran'teo*~perm.its..undAerv_:the:iinpiignediV' intep-state agreement andzwho ha'\'ie'e:i_i'sol"s-eeured p'erm'its and are operating under the inipugriedj'iinterxstate.agreement. The participation of the"'gsecontl_ iespondent --ii'11~-thsé.i proceedings is also addressed'toucon.te'i1ri"-that,sgtiheiobjection is not tenable as he had no personal intlerest and was merely discharging his ~ . g_ciutie_s'i:r1 o_fficial"'capa;:'ity.
V "S, "Resp0nd*ent no.12 has questioned the loam' standi of the petitioriers"ipreferring the writ petition as they do not possess
-<.__li~nter--sta'te.___'permits either from Bangalore to Coimbatore or 23 23 Bangaiore to Denkanikota. Hence, the inter-»state agreement does not affect their rights.
9. Respondents 6,12,15,16 have filed objections to the writ petition in ,'.'7\/P"4586/20;LiSfdtid: "wotilld contend that the grounds raised in this wi:it'petition_*v_t are sirr1i1a~rto--., the grounds raised in WP 20008/2iO()§;.exCept w1tjitiipetition,ii the petitioner had sought'fot't~.a writ ofi"prohii"t1ition against the first respondent from finalising. the'-.inter--:sta'te,agreeinent. Insofar as the Stage Carriage §rar_initi"saidito the petitioner being invalid 1, _the,:i'perrniit"'has not been counter--signed by the State "Franspo1'i:'atit'hor'i«ty" of Tami} Nadu at any point of time. in ggthisi regard, an appeal was filed before the State I V iiT'1~3,n'sipori*ti'}\ppc11ate Tribiunai of Madras regarding the rejection of the 'c'ot1int'er'_s,ignatiire. Since the Tribunai negated the appeai, a . civil irevis---ion"p'etition was fiied before the Supreme Court in Civil iio.3605/2003, which is pending consideration and an 'ti-'interim direction which was sought for, was rejected. In that 5' 24 background, it cannot be said that the petitioner therein was competent to challenge the inter--state agreement as he,V.doe.'s._Vnot hold any permit as the so-called permit held by paper, since it is not counter signed t_>_y...th_e tra_--n'siportiatithoiriityof Tamil Nadu. The law as laid down bythe permit which is not counter signedwoulhd he an V-,in"v.al'i'd~perm.it{V V Hence, the petitioner lack the l(2..:zz.;:-...§_'tr1i?i.ii';'_ to qtiestioii the inter- state agreement, which hasVb_e'eni~con'clI_ided=..in accordance with the provisions MY Act.' Insoifar.iiiVfi§ie allegation against the second respon'd_ent"'is» cio-rijcerneti, it is pointed out that he was merely ii..dis-::iiarg'iiagr-._'his"'~.offic'ial functions and though his participation did.' not _vit.i.atey the proceedings. ._f°¥lQ.__ii'Responde~nt___no.l8 has filed statement of objections to contendVthatf~tiiid.er the inteI'--state agreement, the States of Karnataka and °§"amil Nadahave determined the rounds and trips
-'«.__"-for StageV__Ca1'riage Permits on the interstate rounds lying in the :i'Stat.es.i.~'of Karnataka and Tarnii Nadu and the provisions namely, 3 Section 88(5) and 88(6) of the MV Act, which provide t'_o_r such an agreement being entered into does not invo}\ie.,yi"t.he adjudication of the rights of the parties. The petitiionersi hold any valid permit and therefore, ,:::r'e" not ,_e1--1titl,edivito._=f;uestio'n the said agreement. It is for the ijeciproicatirsg States; to"decide"the'--.. number 01° permits, rounds and the no right to demand that his or included as a matter of right. He,nc:,e:"? misconceived.
Significantly, . made a party to the petition on that ground alone as being of necessary parties.
11. Respovndentiiino';9,iii'has filed Statement of objections to 'conte~ni:l that the sia'i'd.re_s_prmdent holds a stage carriage permit for iflthe.irtteretatei'route between Bangalore and Villupurarn which has beeappreneweidsifqsf to 11.8.2011. Upon the grant of the permit, an 'applicat1'"o_n°:.was filed for grant of counter signature before the Ti'*fii';iitAat6:_ii':if;'ansport Authority, Tamil Nadu, which by its order dated 9 the petitioner. The High Court of Madras granted an order of stay. On a further representation, the ninth respondent's rour.e'e.yvas included as saved permit under Act 41 of 1992 Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the a11egati_o11s_i_n theipetii-ii_eni"=to,sta.te"' that there has been any discriniinationin Oftiii3.respij'i1Ciidn:t is not a correct statement. in anapeiirent, the__ petVit1one.r"cai111iot be" i caiied an aggrieved person a.s'""the-- Va-llegations-A agaiiist the authorities are vague and doc.inot'-vi/arrai1t'-- fconsviderettion by this court. The gr~o'Li':~1d;<;~ aiso 'tintefna.b_ieViVfiand do not merit consideration' _as.:jti1~ere"'--is 4'i1i5V'i.ma11iifetgt'error on record or the exercise of powerd'as"-b'e'ing;"arbitrary. The several authorities cited to substa11tiate_'ti:at the petition does not warrant consideration as '"~._no speicific' rnateriai«iS__..pieaded by the petitioner to demonstrate i'--v.tphatthe_ were biased against the petitioner or that any speciali interest the respondents has been satisfied. i2.it.The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to contend that "insvo_fair}as the contention that the petitioner has no locus srandi is 5 28 misconceived. Since it is not material whether they possessed a permit while testing the validity of challenge to an-«_iiite'r~_st--:1Ate agreement. As it is evident from Section 88(5) of View of the words "permits which are"proposed to. granted or counte1'--signed" is significant, thereby meaniiig [h3i[_"l[Aiil"i€€di an existing permit. This apart. is'i«nc"e. the pet_i_tioncr'sjpetition is admittedly pending befo1*e'L'the petitioner has challenged the the inter--state agreement, it has no interest which that petitioner being entitled {to 'court, the petitioner had filed objections iiopithe idraft"int'er--state agreement and was also ~'V.p_represe.nted by c"o'u«ns_e_l.»in the proceedings. Insofar as the V'-,pa.n:iicipya'ti.o'n second respondent in the proceedings is concerned,_ .iteAii_s7:not necessary for the petitioner to prove main fldes. 'l'he'mere fact that he was holding the post of Chairman of a iijifgdisentitled him to participate in the proceedings. Respondent 3 to l8 being direct beneficiaries of such illegal é 29 proceedings, are not in 21 position to raise objections to the writ petition.
E3. in considering the above facts and circurn«st.zinr:es;'.;'the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed. th't:._ foliowing judgments, insofar as his c=onte.ntion;--.tI*iat 'procee_diwz1:g$ conducted by the Principai Secretary;xTi"an$pofi'..AjDeVpa1itmentt> cannot be construed as the proceediihgswcondocted the State Government-
1. ManqkLa1 i,=§'[%1>r.13§§;;9m hem; 11957 SCR 575]
2. Gwapezzzzoz1vagés;;:ast¢=.1e;za.@171"0111m v.Ar1dl/zra Pradesh Stare Road Trz:mp'1;r1 t;'o1é',r;15;ra1{;':1n and Arzother, AIR 1959 SC 308,
3. G111f(1;1j9c1.Ili Naige.$iviar(1:Rc1(1 and Orlzers v. The Stare of/mdhra A it Agé}%z1;1e;s}11akzciiggrlzm, AIR 1959 SC 1376, K; .V[.i<'V"r--*.,r_1i.1']1';*4.Vr.iizVi'«=.}i,1.~ Union Qflndia [AIR 1970 SC 150],
5. ii Kff.i'f11?s£:iiBL{.S' Service P91. Ltd. vs State Of Haryana & 0119 [AIR..1ii9{§5VSC 1551], it A' B-;.'.'Ra}ic1172aIh11lla Khan And 0125'. vs Stare Of Karnaraka And "'._iOrsiii[AlR 1989 Kar. 157] 5 8 M 30
7. KR.Bhaskaranancla v. Stare of Karnataka [AIR 1998 Kar 182],
8. Mar Modern Cooperative Transport Society Limlfcd v. Financial CoImn.is.s'i()m3r' and Secretczry to G({y'.e_};l:1lf%zl5:f;£.ll"Qf Haryana and Another [AIR 2002(6) SCC 269]
9. Delhi Fin. Corpn. And Am-. V. RajngArzazzd"Ana;<jn{;<.2094"
UUSCC625] I0. M.P.Special Police E.S'lC1bll.S'Vli'r.":3'_(','I'il v.KS'ltIfe iancl lE;:rllier.§"", [(2004) 8 SCC 788].
The Counsek for :'t*he relliliédl upon the foliowing judgments to contélljdl not entitied for preferenvtifillllllffealjjjenlfih finder Chapter-V of the MV Act:~ 8 V' 8 8 8
1. SL4peirinIen'denf ':'?émer1zbrar1c*er, State Of West Bengal l_/:.§fg.CQ_}*povz'azi(jn'Qf__Calc'utIa [AIR 1967 SC 997 1, .;'Si2_gr_v8i:1gl1:'&__Or.v Vs. Union Oflndia And Others' [1984 (1) 'V 3. lfan v. Siare Transport Appellate Tribunal and Others
8. - ;1__ 987*sypp.sCC 67] 1.
§ Further that the proceedings are vitiated, as at the relevant point of time, he was also holding the post of Chairman_io»f. the ST{} and further to contend that no special considerjat'i'onj_~ shown to the STU as the State Undertaltipng is = preferential treatment in proceeding u'rider;"Chapter-'Vjiiofi"tlie._N2'l."\Z Act and further that the pe1'mitsiiof~~.somei"private -'being»i' included in the agreement, is arbitrrars/';v-_ Since the petitioner admittedly no longer holds interi«is'}§21ite pe_r1ni_t,"an'y' proceediings pending before the apex:Courtitin.thisiiregard...ls wholly' irrelevant, as the petitioner is admittedly not in seeking to question the inter- state agreenienta Thei-e-fore, the primary objection of the respondents thatthe petitioners have no locus Stcmdi to question theinter--st2itci,l_agreeh1ent would have to be accepted. i'Tho"ugh'iithe counsel for the petitioners took great pains in {seeking to urge the several grounds in the writ petition and ____""extiensive1y referred to the case--law, the petitions would fail on the Z5 preliminary objection that the petitioner does not admittedly hold inter-state permits. Though the petitioners in WP 793/2()Q'8.._h~aVve asserted that they are permit hoiders, the vehement--A"'deni:ziI statement by the respondents, is not met~--by the _t)etiiti4onier.sj.and therefore, it would have to be heid thin tile-eipetiti'o.ne~:s «hzi made out any case for interference'by"'this court, doesiiit merit V consideration in addressin the se'v'er3'is-f_:41'oVfi1ads urged. Accordingly, the writ pe~titions zire.--d.is'1'nIi_'ssed.
sa/-3' , i Iudqé