Karnataka High Court
Sri J.S. Manjunath vs Karnataka State Transport Authority on 12 June, 2017
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
W.P.No.2001/2005 c/w
W.P.Nos.2011/2005, 13059/2005, 14926/2005,
24896/2005, 44750/2004, 22907/2005, 24568/2005,
267/2006, 10185/2008 c/w 10180/2008 &
10181/2008, 14173 - 14175/2011, 18775/2011 (MV)
IN W. P.No.2001/2005:
BETWEEN :
SRI J.S. MANJUNATH
& J.S.ARJUN
SONS OF SRINIVASAIAH,
MANJUNATHA RICE AND FLOUR MILLS,
BAMBOO BAZAAR ROAD, CHINTAMANI,
CHICKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 125.
(CAUSE TITLE AMENED AS PER
COURT ORDE DATED 03.10.2016) ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B R S GUPTA, ADV.)
AND :
1. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT
AUTHORITY, BANGALORE 560 001,
BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT
AUTHORITY, BANGALORE 560 001
3. KARNTAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
-2-
CENTRAL OFFICES,
BANGALORE-560 027
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
4. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
5. R L RAMACHANDRA
S/O LATE R S LAKSHMANA REDDY
MAJOR, PROPRIETOR,
R.S.L.ENTERPRISES
N.R.EXTENSION, CHINTHAMANI,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
6. SMT.J ANURADHA
W/O G JAGADISH KUMAR
MAJOR, BALAJI TRANSPORTS,
10TH CROSS, ASHOKNAGAR,
TUMKUR
7. B SURESH BABU
S/O B S SRINIVASA SHASTRY
MAJOR, RAILWAY STATION ROAD,
CHINTHAMANI, KOLAR DISTRICT
8. SMT.LEELAVATHI
W/O K MUNIRAJU
MAJOR, KAMALAVARIPALLI,
KASHETTIPALLI POST
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT
9. R V RAMALINGA REDDY
S/O LATE R.K.VEMA REDDY,
MAJOR,
RAGUTTAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
CHINTAMANI TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1 & 2;
SRI R V JAYAPRAKASH A/W
SRI HAREESH BHANDARY, ADV. FOR R3;
-3-
SRI S PRAKASH SHETTY, ADV. FOR R4;
SRI B R VISHWANATH, ADV. FOR R5;
SRI K N MAHABALESHWAR RAO, ADV. FOR R6;
SRI H B NAGARAJ, ADV. FOR R7;
M/S P J RAJAGOPAL AND ASSOCIATES, ADVS. FOR R7;
R8 & R9 SERVED.)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDERS OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL PASSED IN APPEALS NO.164 OF 2002, 158 OF 2002,
875 OF 2004, 63 OF 2002, 76 OF 2002, 77 OF 2002, 103 OF
2002, 135 OF 2002 AND REVISION PETITION NO. 374 OF 2004
DT. 15.12.2004 MARKED UNDER ANX. J.
IN W. P.No.2011/2005:
BETWEEN :
V GOPI
AGE 35 YEARS
S/O J VENKATACHALAMAIAH
BAMBOO BAZAAR ROAD,
CHINTHAMANI,
KOLAR DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI B R S GUPTA, ADV.)
AND :
1. KARNATAKA STATE
TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
MS BUILDINGS,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE,
BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA STATE
TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
MULTISTOREYED BUILDINGS
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE
-4-
3. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
CENTRAL OFFICES
BANGALORE-560 027
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD
REP BY MANAGING DIRECTOR
5. B A RAMAMOHAN
S/O B V ASHWATHAIAH
MAJOR, PROPRIETOR
VENKATESHWARA MOTOR
SERVICE, CHINTHAMANI
KOLAR DISTRICT.
6. SMT. R S RAJALAKSHMAMMA
MAJOR, BUS OPERATOR
CHINTHAMANI,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
7. SMT. M LEELAVATHI
W/O K MUNIRAJU
MAJR, KAMALAVARIPALLI
KASHETTIPALLI
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT.
8. KUTHUBDIN KHAN
S/O LATE AYUB KHAN
MAJOR, A T S BUS SERVICE
CHINTHAMANI, KOLAR DISTRICT.
9. N RAMESH KUMAR
S/O H NARAYANA GOWDA
MAJOR, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA
M B ROAD, KOLAR. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1 & 2;
SRI HAREESH BHANDARY, ADV. FOR R3; SRI S PRAKASH
SHETTY, ADV. FOR R4; SRI H B NAGARAJ, ADV. FOR R6;
R5, R7 & R8 SERVED.)
-5-
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDERS OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL PASSED IN APPEALS NO. 169 OF 2002, 876 OF 2004,
85 OF 2002, 86 OF 2002, 104 OF 2002, 185 OF 2002, 224 OF
2002, 158 OF 2002 AND REVISION PETITION NO. 373 OF 2004
DATED 15TH DECEMBER, 2004 MARKED UNDER ANNEXURE-'J'.
IN W. P.No.13059/2005:
BETWEEN :
SRI J.S. MANJUNATH
& SRI J.S.ARJUN
SONS OF SRINIVASAIAH,
MANJUNATHA RICE AND FLOUR MILLS,
BAMBOO BAZAAR ROAD,
CHINTAMANI,
CHICKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 125.
(CAUSE TITLE AMENED AS PER
COURT ORDE DATED 03.10.2016) ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B R S GUPTA, ADV.)
AND :
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE
TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
MS BUILDINGS, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001,
BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 027
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. D RADHA KRISHNA NAIDU
S/O VENKATAPPA NAIDU, MAJOR
BUS OPERATOR, HINDUPUR
ANDHRA PRADESH.
-6-
4. V L NARASIMHA MURTHY
S/O V N LAKSHMAIAH, MAJOR
NEAR GEETHA MANDIR
N R EXTENSION, CHINTAMANI
KOLAR DISTRICT.
5. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1;
M/S ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSOCIATES FOR R2;
SRI P R RAMESH, ADV. FOR R4;
SRI S PRAKASH SHETTY, ADV. FOR R5; R3 SERVED.)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDERS OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL PASSED IN APPEALS Nos.88, 89, 90 AND 91 OF 2005
DATED 28.03.2005.
IN W. P.No.14926/2005:
BETWEEN :
R.VENKATESHAM CHETTY
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs.
SRI R.V. BALAJI
& SRI R.V.SUBASHCHANDRA BOSE
SONS OF LATE P.VENKATESHAM CHETTY
PROPRIETORS
SRI VENKATESHWAR MOTOR SERVICE
GANDHINAGAR, KOLAR.
(CAUSE TITLE AMENED AS PER
COURT ORDE DATED 14.07.2008) ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B R S GUPTA, ADV.)
-7-
AND :
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT
AUTHORITY, MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
CENTRAL OFFICE
KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 027
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD
ANDHRAPRADESH
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1;
SRI N.K.RAMESH, ADV. FOR R2;
SRI S PRAKASH SHETTY, ADV. FOR R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDERS OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL PASSED IN APPEALS No.168/2002 AND 330 OF 2005
DATED 16.5.2005 VIDE ANNEX.G.
IN W. P.No.24896/2005:
BETWEEN :
AMEER PASHA
S/O LATE M ABDUL RAZAK
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
PROP: M.B.S. EXPRESS
PADMAGHATTA
MULBAGAL TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI C V KUMAR, ADV.)
-8-
AND :
1. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
IN KARNATAKA, 5TH FLOOR
MS BUILDINGS, ANNEXE
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE, BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
K.S.R.T.C., K.H. ROAD
CENTRAL OFFICES
BANGALORE-560 027. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1;
SRI HAREESH BHANDARY, ADV. FOR R2.)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDERS OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL PASSED IN APPEAL NO.578/2002 DATED 05.11.2005
VIDE ANNEX-D TO THE WRIT PETITION.
IN W. P.No.44750/2004(MV)
BETWEEN :
R.VENKATESHAM CHETTY
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs.
SRI R.V. BALAJI
& SRI R.V.SUBASHCHANDRA BOSE
SONS OF LATE P.VENKATESHAM CHETTY
PROPRIETORS
SRI VENKATESHWAR MOTOR SERVICE
GANDHINAGAR, KOLAR.
(CAUSE TITLE AMENED AS PER
COURT ORDE DATED 30.05.2008) ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B R S GUPTA, ADV.)
-9-
AND :
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT
AUTHORITY,
MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 027
3. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD
ANDHRAPRADESH
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4. G.V. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O G.T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY
MAJOR, VINAYAKA MOTOR SERVICE
KALASIPALYAM
BANGALORE-560 002.
5. G.V. NARAYANA REDDY
S/O G.T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY
MAJOR, VINAYAKA MOTOR SERVICE
KALASIPALYAM
BANGALORE-560 002. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1;
SRI S PRAKASH SHETTY, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3;
SRI S V KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV. FOR C/R 4 & 5.)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDERS OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL PASSED IN APPEALS No.94, 95, 96, 97, 165 AND 166
OF 2002 AND 616 OF 2004 DATED 27.10.2004 VIDE ANNEX.F.
- 10 -
IN W. P.No.22907/2005:
BETWEEN :
R.VENKATESHAM CHETTY
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs.
SRI R.V. BALAJI
& SRI R.V.SUBASHCHANDRA BOSE
SONS OF LATE P.VENKATESHAM CHETTY
PROPRIETORS
SRI VENKATESHWAR MOTOR SERVICE
GANDHINAGAR, KOLAR.
(CAUSE TITLE AMENED AS PER
COURT ORDE DATED 30.05.2008) ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B R S GUPTA, ADV.)
AND :
1. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
MULTI-STORIED BUILDINGS,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
CENTRAL OFFICES
KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 027
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD
ANDHRAPRADESH
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4. SHAMSHEER MOTOR SERVICE
MAIN ROAD, FORT, KOLAR
NOW AT: No.42,
LUBBI MASJID STREET
- 11 -
SHIVAJI NAGAR
BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1;
SRI T HARISH BHANDARY, ADV. FOR R2;
SRI S PRAKASH SHETTY, ADV. FOR R3; R4 SERVED.)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
IN APPEALS No.36, 37 AND 38/2005 DATED 17.09.2005 VIDE
ANNEX-F.
IN W. P.No.24568/2005:
BETWEEN :
1. P.R. MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O P.M. RANGANATH
PROP: SRI HANUMAN MOTOR SERVICE
SIRA, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 137.
2. P.R. SRIRANGA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O P.M. RANGANATH
PROP: SRI HANUMAN MOTOR SERVICE
SIRA, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 137.
3. P.R. RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O P.M. RANGANATH
PROP: SRI HANUMAN MOTOR SERVICE
SIRA, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 137. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B R S GUPTA, ADV.)
AND :
1. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
BY ITS SECRETARY
4TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDINGS,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
- 12 -
2. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MUSHIRABAD
ANDHRAPRADESH-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1;
SRI T HARISH BHANDARY, ADV. FOR R2;
SRI S PRAKASH SHETTY, ADV. FOR R3.)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT:
17.09.2005 OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL IN APPEALS No.834/2004 AND CONNECTED CASES
VIDE AT ANNEX-A.
IN W. P.No.267/2006:
BETWEEN :
R.VENKATESHAM CHETTY
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs.
SRI R.V.SUBASHCHANDRA BOSE
SRI R.V. BALAJI
SONS OF LATE P.VENKATESHAM CHETTY
PROPRIETORS
SRI VENKATESHWAR MOTOR SERVICE
GANDHINAGAR, KOLAR.
(CAUSE TITLE AMENED AS PER
COURT ORDE DATED 06.08.2008) ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B R S GUPTA, ADV.)
AND :
1. KARNATAKA STATE
- 13 -
TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
MULTI-STORIED BUILDINGS,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD
ANDHRAPRADESH.
3. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
CENTRAL OFFICES
KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 027. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1;
SRI S PRAKASH SHETTY, ADV. FOR R2;
SRI K NAGARAJ, ADV. FOR R3.)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
IN APPEALS No.427/2004, 322, 323/2005 DATED 20.12.2005
VIDE ANNEX-D.
IN W.P.No.10185/2008:
BETWEEN :
MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE
K H ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 027
REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER (ROUTE). ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADV.)
AND :
1. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
- 14 -
MS BUILDING 2ND FLOOR
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-01
BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. SMT M S POORNIMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
C/O H BHAVANI SHANKAR
No.139/11, F-2
JAI BHAVANI SHANKAR
MUTTA ROAD, MYSORE.
3. SRI K T RAJASHEKAR
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O LATE K GOWDA
PROP: SRS TRAVELS
KALASIPALYAM
BANGALORE-560 002.
(CAUSE TITLE AMENED AS PER
COURT ORDE DATED 08.02.2016) ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1
SRI C V KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2 & R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
RESOLUTION DATED 07.01.2008, DECISION PRONOUNCED ON
21.01.2008 PASSED BY THE R1, AUTHORITY VIDE ANN-A.
IN W.P.No.10180/2008:
BETWEEN :
MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE
K H ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 027. ....PETITIONER
(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADV.)
AND :
1. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
- 15 -
MS BUILDING 2ND FLOOR
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-01
BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. KHAMARUNNISA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
W/O LATE P LALASHERIFF
PROPTEX, SHERIFF ENTERPRISES
KOLAR. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1
SRI B.R.S. GUPTA, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
RESOLUTION DATED 02.06.2007, DECISION PRONOUNCED ON
21.06.2007 PASSED BY THE R1, AUTHORITY VIDE ANN-A.
IN W.P.No.10181/2008:
BETWEEN :
MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE
K H ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 027.
REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER (ROUTE). ....PETITIONER
(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADV.)
AND :
1. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
MS BUILDING 2ND FLOOR
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-01
BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. NOORNISA BEGUM
W/O LATE M AYUB KHAN
K.R. EXTENSION,
CHINTAMANI, KOLAR. ...RESPONDENTS
- 16 -
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1
SRI B.R.S.GUPTA, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
RESOLUTION DATED 02.06.2007, DECISION PRONOUNCED ON
21.06.2007 PASSED BY THE R1, AUTHORITY VIDE ANN-A.
IN W.P.Nos.14173 - 14175/2011:
BETWEEN :
SRI A S MANJUNATH
S/O SRI N SRIRAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
BALAJI BUS SERVICE, ALAVATTA
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B R S GUPTA, ADV.)
AND :
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE
TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
MULTISTOREYED BUILDINGS
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 027
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
3. SRI K P KRISHNAMARAJU
S/O SRI PURUSHOTHAMA RAJU
MAJOR BY AGE, 1ST MAIN,
GULPET, KOLAR
4. SRI R N NAGARAJA REDDY
S/O SRI R B NARAYANA REDDY
PROPRIETOR
R.G.N.R. MOTOR SERVICE
- 17 -
ROYALPAD,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1;
SRI B.PHALAKSHAIAH, ADV. FOR C/R-2;
R3 AND R4 SERVED)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDERS OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN APPEALS No.1215 AND 1268
OF 2006 AND APPEAL No.78 OF 2007 DATED 06.04.2011
MARKED UNDER ANNEX. F.
IN W.P.No.18775/2011:
BETWEEN :
M/S KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 027
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B PHALAKSHAIAH, ADV.)
AND :
1. THE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
BY ITS SECRETARY
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI A S MANJUNATH
S/O SRI N SRIRAM REDDY,
MAJOR
BALAJI BUS SERVICE
ALAVATHA,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT.
3. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
- 18 -
HYDERABAD
ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1;
SRI BRS GUPTA, ADV. FOR R2;
SRI L T GOPAL, ADV. FOR R3.)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS FROM HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 06.04.2011 ON HIS FILE
1225/2006 COMMON JUDGMENT IN APPEAL No.1215/2006,
1225, 1268/2006 AND 78/2007 AS PER ANNEX.A.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 31.05.2017, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J.,
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Since common issues are involved in these petitions, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners are the existing saved operators under the Kolar Pocket Scheme, operating stage carriage services. The States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh entered into an inter-state agreement as contemplated under Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, now replaced under Section 88 of Motor
- 19 -
Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) dated 1.10.1975, where it was provided for two vehicles to be operated to perform two round trips per day. Based on the same, the petitioners filed an application for variation of the conditions of the permit by way of increase of vehicles with increase of round trips to be operated. The said applications were considered by the 1st respondent and granted variation as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, respondent-corporation preferred appeals before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short). The Tribunal allowed the appeals, set -aside the order of variation of permits. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. The learned counsel Sri.B.R.S.Gupta, appearing for the petitioners would submit that, during the pendency of the appeals before the Tribunal, Kolar Pocket Scheme was modified vide Notification dated 7.11.2003, by virtue of which the petitioners are saved
- 20 -
to operate the service. The petitioners were granted permits and variation was also granted with additional vehicles and trips, prior to the coming into force of the modified Kolar Pocket Scheme, albeit this fact was brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the order of variation of condition of permit was set-aside without addressing the relevant issue regarding the modified Kolar Pocket Scheme. The variation of the condition of the permit was granted by way of increase of trips with inclusion of vehicles and the same being in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and two decisions of the Full Bench of this Court which was holding the field, the Tribunal applying the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gajaraj Singh -v- The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others1 and G.T.Venkatasway Reddy -v- State Transport Authority and others2, not considering the same in the right perspective in the 1 AIR 1997 SC 412 2 (2016) 8 SCC 402
- 21 -
context of the present cases, set-aside the grant of variation. The modified Kolar Pocket Scheme was the subject matter of writ petitions/writ appeals, further challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.A.Lingareddy -v- Karnataka State Transport Authority3, whereby the matters were remanded to the State government with certain terms to reconsider the same afresh. Pursuant to which the State government issued the notification dated 5.8.2015, set-aside the modified Kolar Pocket Scheme. The said notification dated 5.8.2015 was challenged by various operators before this Court which was considered in a batch of petitions in W.P.Nos.49713-720/2015 and connected matters and by a common order dated 3.5.2017, the notification dated 5.8.2015 was quashed and the matters were remanded to the State Government/Tribunal for adjudication. In these circumstances, these writ petitions being identical, 3 2015 AIR SCW 279
- 22 -
deserves to be remanded to the Tribunal for consideration afresh in terms of the judgment and order of this court dated 3.5.2017. It was further contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.T.Venkatasway Reddy (supra2) has categorically held that the effect of Section 68-FF could be altered/modified/cancelled only in the manner as provided for under Section 68-E of M.V.Act, 1939 and in no other manner. That means, the petitioners are saved by the modified Kolar Pocket Scheme. This relevant aspect was lost sight of by the Tribunal while allowing the writ petitions filed by the corporation. Learned counsel placing reliance on G.T.Venkatasway Reddy's case (supra2) submits that the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench in the judgment supports the case of the petitioners. Accordingly, he seeks for setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal and remand the matters to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, in the light of the judgment in G.T.Venkatasway Reddy's
- 23 -
case (supra2) and the judgment of this court in W.P.Nos. 49713-720/2015 and connected matters.
4. Learned counsel Sri.C.V.Kumar, appearing for petitioner in W.P. Nos.14173-175/2011 c/w 18775/2011 supporting the arguments advanced at the hands of the learned counsel Sri.B.R.S.Gupta placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Managing Director, KSRTC -v- State Transport Authority & another (in W.A. No. 1700/2008 DD 5.12.2012) to contend that saved operator under Kolar Pocket Scheme is not entitled to variation of the conditions of a stage carriage permit either in respect of number of trips or number of vehicles as a rule. The exception is if the reciprocal agreements between the States so permits, the operators are entitled to such variation.
5. The learned counsel Sri.Prakash Shetty, appearing for APSRTC, submits that permits are
- 24 -
granted under Section 72 of the Act, whereas variation of conditions of permits are contemplated under Section 80(3) of the Act. Grant of permit and grant of variation of conditions in permit are two different and distinct factors, which cannot be treated as one and the same. Kolar Pocket Scheme exempts the permit holders to whom permits are already granted and issued by transport authorities which relates to the original permits granted under section 72 of the Act and that can not be construed as to be applicable for the variation of conditions of permit granted under Section 80(3) of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the modified Kolar Pocket Scheme is not applicable to the present cases.
6. The further contentions are, petitioners are operating the service in the notified route. Section 98 of the Act contemplates that the provisions of Chapter-VI, any rules and orders made therein shall have effect
- 25 -
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter-V or in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law i.e., Chapter-VI prevails over Chapter-V of the Act.
7. Section 104 of the Act restricts grant of permits in respect of the notified area or a notified route. What is saved in the modified Kolar Pocket Scheme as far as the petitioners are considered is the original permits, not the variation of conditions of the permit. The Tribunal profusely analyzing these aspects in a right perspective allowed the revisions petitions which cannot be found fault with. Learned counsel placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gajaraj Singh (supra1) and Venkataswamy Reddy (supra) submitted that no variation of condition of permit is permissible in the notified routes.
- 26 -
8. Learned counsel Sri.Hareesh Bhandary appearing for KSRTC contended that the modified Kolar Pocket Scheme is not applicable to the present case on two counts. Firstly, the modified Kolar pocket scheme exempts the permit holders to whom permits are granted originally under Section 72 of the Act. Secondly, cut-off date prescribed is to the permits already granted and issued by transport authorities after modification of the scheme dated 10.1.1980 on inter-state, inter district and intra district routes overlapping the road section and the notified routes lying in the scheme of Kolar Pocket Scheme as on 31.7.1999 and also on the date of the draft notification i.e. 27.5.2003. Variation of conditions of the permit were granted subsequent to the cut-off date i.e. 31.7.1999 . In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this court in SRI V.Gopi -V- Regional Transport
- 27 -
Authority (W.A. No.1783/2006) and the constitution bench judgment in G.T.Venkatasway Reddy's case (supra2).
9. Learned counsel Sri. Palakshaiah appearing for KSRTC in some cases contended that variation of condition of permit cannot be substituted for permit. Inviting the attention of this court to the memorandum of writ petition filed in W.P.Nos. 14173-175/2011 c/w 18775/2011 submitted that the petitioner himself was of the opinion that the variation of the conditions of permit is different from the permit. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot take shelter under the modified Kolar Pocket Scheme. Learned counsel further referring to the judgment of this court in W.P.Nos.49713-720/2015 and connected matters submitted that any permit which is granted by the Authority competent to do so and which is in accordance with the provisions of the Act, can only be
- 28 -
treated as valid permit and concession given by the State Government or the interim orders granted by the courts cannot be treated as a grant of permit or validation of the permit so granted. Reiterating the arguments urged by the learned counsel for the corporation, the learned counsel Sri.Phalakshaiah contended that clauses (h) and (k) of para 50 of the G.T.Venkataswamy Reddy's case clearly enunciates that increase in the number of trips or vehicles which were being run under the existing exempted permit under a scheme would amount to grant of a new permit which is not permissible. Similarly, even if there is an inter-state agreement for increasing the number of trips, such an agreement cannot override the provisions of Chapter VI of the Act.
10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
- 29 -
11. The question that arises for consideration in this batch of writ petitions are:
a) Whether increase in the number of trips or vehicles by variation of conditions of any permit which were granted and operated are saved under the modified Kolar Pocket Scheme of 2003 ?
b) Whether clause (f) of para 50 of G.T.Venkataswamy Reddy's case, permits the operators to seek for renewal of the permits in terms of the modified Kolar Pocket Scheme of 2003 ?
12. It would be beneficial to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act, which are as under:
" 2(31) "permit" means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or an authority prescribed in this behalf under this Act authorising the use of motor vehicle as a transport vehicle ;"
Section 72 of the Act reads thus:
"72. Grant of stage carriage permit - (1) Subject to the provisions of section 71, a Regional Transport Authority may, on an application made to it under
- 30 -
section 70, grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit :
Provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the application.
(2) The Regional Transport Authority, of it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified description and may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely :-
xxx xxx xxx"
Section 80 (3) of the Act reads thus:
"80. Procedure in applying for and granting permits :-
(1) xxxxx (2) xxxxx (3) An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, or in the case of a stage
- 31 -
carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit ;
Provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat an application made by the holder of stage carriage permit who provides the only service on any route to increase 111 the frequency of the service so provided without any increase in the number of vehicles ;
Provided further that, -
(i) in the case of variation, the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed twenty four kilometers ;
(ii) in the case of extension, the distance covered by extension shall not exceed twenty four kilometers from the termini, & any such variation or extension within such limits shall be made only after the transport authority is satisfied that such variation will serve
- 32 -
the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof.
(3) A Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-
section (1) of section 66 may, before such date as may be specified by it in this behalf, replace any permit granted by it before the said date by a fresh permit conforming to the provisions of section 72 or section 74 or section 76 or section 79, as the case may be, and the fresh permit shall be valid for the same route or routes or the same area for which the replaced permit was valid. Provided that no condition other than a condition which was already attached to the replaced permit or which could have been attached thereto under the law in force when that permit was granted shall be attached to the fresh permit except with the consent in writing of the holder of the permit. 52.
- 33 -
Substituted for "Regional Transport Authority" by Act 54 of 1994, S. 25 ( w.e.f. 14- 11-1994) (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 81, a permit issued under the provisions of sub-section (4) shall be effective without renewal for the remainder of the period during which the replaced permit would have been so effective. "
13. 'Permit' as defined under Section 2(31) of the Act means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or an authority prescribed in this behalf under the Act authorizing the use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle. Section 72 of the Act provides for grant of stage carriage permit. Section 80 (3) provides for the procedure in applying for variation of the conditions of the permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, or in the case of a stage carriage permit by
- 34 -
increasing the number of trips above the number specified maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the areas specified in the permit. An application to variation of such conditions in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of new permit.
14. Modified Kolar approved Scheme reads thus:
"In the principal scheme published under sub-Section (3) of Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act 4 of 1939) in Notification No.HD 70(2) TMP 64, dated 10th January 1968 and further modified in Notification I.No.HD 45 TIMI 76, dated 10.1.1980 in the entries corresponding to item
(d) after clause (c), the following shall be inserted, namely:-
"(d) In the case of permit holders to whom permits are already granted and issued by Transport Authorities after modification of the scheme dated 10-1-1980 on Inter-State, Inter-
District and Intra-Districts routes overlapping the road Section of the notified routes lying in
- 35 -
the scheme of Kolar as on 31.7.1999 and also on the date of the Draft Notification, i.e., 27- 05-2003, they are exempted to operate their service, Notwithstanding anything contained in the Bangalore and Anekal Schemes, with a condition that they shall not be entitled to pickup or set down passengers in such portion of the notified route lying in the Scheme of Kolar."
15. The constitution bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in G.T.Venkatasway Reddy's case (supra2) at paragraphs 48, 49 and 50 has held thus:
"48. While interpreting Section 68FF of the Act, therefore we are convinced that that is the only manner in which an interpretation to the said Section 68FF can be made and in no other manner. The only other alternate available is what is provided under Section 68E of the Act which again is within the jurisdiction of the State Transport Undertaking or the State Government under sub section 1 or 2 as the case may be.
49. As we are not called upon to answer any other question, we confine ourselves to the
- 36 -
question viz., on the publication of an approved scheme whether the number of the trips of the vehicles of the existing operators can be increased by granting the variation of the permit even when the existing operators are allowed to carry on their operation on the date of the publication of the scheme as it was existing as on that date. To the said question, one other aspect to be considered is along with the number of trips can such existing operator aspire to seek for increasing the number of vehicles as well should also be added. In fact, when the question of conflict as between 'JAYARAM' and 'EGAPPAN' was noted while making the present reference to the Constitution Bench in the order dated 22.07.2003, the conflict really pertain to the variation applied for both by way of increase in trips as well as increase of vehicles.
50. Having analysed the above referred to decisions and the statutory provisions, before rendering our final answer to the question referred to this Constitution Bench, it will be worthwhile to make a reference and list out the legal propositions which we are able to discern based on our detailed consideration in this reference
- 37 -
:
[a] Chapter IV-A supersedes any inconsistent provisions in Chapter IV.
[b] The policy of the Legislature is clear from Section 68C that the State Transport Undertaking may initiate a scheme for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service to be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking in relation to any area or route or portion thereof. It may do so if it is necessary in the public interest.
[c] Grant of variation under Section 57(8) will be as good as grant of a new permit.
[d] Section 57(8) is controlled by Section 68FF falling under Chapter IV-A, by virtue of the superseding effect of Section 68B also falling under Chapter IVA [e] Once a scheme formulated under Section 68D gets approved under 68D(3) of Chapter IVA, then all the permits in the route / area covered by the scheme will get frozen by virtue of operation of Section 68FF.
- 38 -
[f] The effect of Section 68FF can be altered / modified / cancelled only in the manner as provided for under Section 68E and in no other manner.
[g] By virtue of the above, either a grant of a new permit or the variation of an existing permit of private operator cannot be ordered in respect of an area or route covered by an Approved Scheme.
[h] Increase in the number of trips or vehicles which were being run under the existing exempted permit under a Scheme will amount to grant of a new permit to operate one more Stage Carriage which is not permissible under Section 68FF.
[i] The proposition of law, laid down by this Court in 'JAYARAM' impliedly stood overruled in 'ADARSH TRAVELS'.
[j] The economy and coordination, two of the factors, which govern the Approved Scheme, will be seriously infringed if the variation is to be granted of the existing permit condition.
- 39 -
[k] Even if there is an interstate agreement under Section 63 of the Act for increasing the number of trips, such an agreement cannot override the provisions of Chapter IV-A by virtue of Section 68B of the Act. Section 63 being in Chapter IV of the Act, the Scheme approved under Chapter IV-A will prevail over it.
[l] The Approved Scheme will exclude the operation of other stage carriage services on the Route / Area covered by the Scheme, except those whose names are mentioned in the Scheme and to the extent to which such exception is allowed.
[m] The provisions in Chapter IV-A are devised to override the provisions of Chapter IV and it is expressly so enacted, the provisions of Chapter IV-A are clear and complete regarding the manner and effect of the "takeover" of the operation of a road transport service by the State Transport Undertaking in relation to any Area or Route or portion thereof (ADARSH TRAVELS).
- 40 -
[n] A necessary consequence of those provisions is that no private operator can operate his vehicle on any part or portion of a notified area or notified route unless authorized so to do by the term of the scheme itself. He may not operate on any part or portion of the notified Route or Area on the mere ground that the permit as originally granted to him covered the notified Route or Area (ADARSH TRAVELS)."
16. During the relevant point of time, the authorities granted variations of conditions of permit in terms of Section 80(3) of the Act based on the applications filed by the operators. Now the law on the point of variation of conditions of permit is crystallized in terms of the constitution bench judgment in G.T.Venkatasway Reddy's case (supra2). The learned counsel for petitioners though admit that variation of conditions of permit with the increase in number of trips or vehicles would be as good as grant of a new permit and the same is not permissible but placing
- 41 -
reliance on clause (f) of para 50 of the judgment of the constitution Bench in G.T.Venkatasway Reddy's case (supra2) vehemently argued that the effect of Section 68- FF can be altered/modified/cancelled in the manner as provided for under Section 68-E of M.V. Act, 1939 /Section 102 of M.V. Act 1988; As such, in view of the modified Kolar approved scheme, the operators being saved, their permits granted and issued by the transport authorities with the variation of permits are also saved, hence, the constitution Bench Judgment comes to their assistance as regards the additional trips/vehicles are concerned. To examine this point, it is apt to analyse the modified Kolar approved Scheme 2003. This modified scheme was notified on 7.11.2003 modifying the principal scheme dated 10.1.1968 and further modified in notification dated 10.1.1980. The permits which are saved under this modified approved scheme are the permits which are granted and issued by transport Authorities after modification of the
- 42 -
scheme dated 10.01.1980 lying in the scheme of Kolar as on 31.07.1999 and also on the date of draft notification i.e., 27.05.2003. Indisputably, the permit holders/operators are exempted to operate their service in the notified routes lying in the scheme of Kolar as on 31.07.1999 after modification of the scheme dated 10.01.1980. But the crucial issue is whether the permits referred to in the modified approved scheme relates only to the original permit granted and issued under Section 72 of the Act or also includes the variation of conditions of permit granted and issued under Section 80(3) of the Act. Section 57(8) of the 1939 Act which is in paramateria with Section 80(3) of the Act was elaborately considered by the constitution Bench in G.T.Venkatasway Reddy's case (supra2) and held that it should mandatorily be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit. It is categorically held that even in respect of protected operation under the scheme of any existing operator, as
- 43 -
on the date of approved scheme, he will have to restrict his operation to the extent to which he was permitted as on that date and the manner in which such operation was permitted under the approved scheme and not beyond. The arguments of the petitioners is prima-facie in conflict with the constitutional bench judgment. Any other interpretation of the word 'permit' employed in the modified Kolar approved scheme, contrary to the constitution Bench judgment is not permissible. The permit protected under the modified approved scheme of 2003 relates to the date of the original approved scheme and the original permit granted under Section 72 of the Act. Yet another point to be noted is the cut-off dates mentioned in the modified approved scheme of 2003. It would not be suffice if the permit with variation of conditions of permit was qualified for exemption on 27.5.2003 but the same should be qualified as on 31.7.1999 also. This view is fortified by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A. No.
- 44 -
1783/2006 (DD 4.1.2007) whereby the very same notification was considered and held that the Scheme does not contemplate an exemption in respect of the permit holders who hold the same at any point of time in between the said two dates i.e., 31.7.1999 and also on 27.05.2003, the intention is to provide exemption only to those stage carriage permits which would be valid both on the initial date as well as last date indicated in the notification. The permit with the variation should have to be current on 27.5.2003 also in addition to being valid on 31.7.1999. On this count also, the said variation of condition of permit with additional trips/vehicles is not sustainable. The law is well settled that any permit can be treated as valid if the same is granted by the Authority competent to do so with the protection as on the date of approved scheme.
- 45 -
17. While considering the effect of Section 72 of the Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gajaraj Singh's case (supra1) has held thus:
"56. It is required to be stated that along with the application under Section 70 filed for grant of permit under Section 72 or renewal under Section 81 made by the named holder of a specified permit in an approved scheme, he should enclose an authenticated copy of the approved scheme, the details of the route on which he was plying his stage carriage with corridor restrictions. The RTA or STA, as the case may be, should verify the original scheme under which the named operator, whose specified permit was saved, whether he is entitled to ply the stage carriage in approved scheme with the condition of the corridor restrictions imposed in the notified scheme and if so to what extent. What is the duration of his right saved in the approved scheme? Whether he had plied his stagecarriage on complying with the law in force? His right to permit under Section 72 or renewal under Section 81 cannot be higher than the original right saved in the approved scheme. The STU also should be heard in that behalf. On consideration of these and all other relevant facts in relation to
- 46 -
grant of stage carriage permit or renewal thereof, the appropriate authority may grant or reject. In the later event, for reasons to be recorded in support of the rejection."
62. Accordingly, we hold that the named transport operators whose permits were saved in the relevant scheme shall apply for permits under Section 70 and 71 and obtain permits afresh under Section 72 of the Act before the expiry of the period mentioned in the permit issued either under Section 47 or Section 48 or renewal under Section 58 or Section 68F(1D) of the Repealed Act. No third party/private operators are entitled to apply for permits on the same notified route or part thereof, nor are they entitled to compete with them for grant of permit, since the right of all other private operators to apply for and operate in the approved notified area, route or a part thereof, has been frozen. The right is reserved only in relation to the named operators and that too for specified permit, and none else. Along with the application under Section 70 filed for grant of permit under Section 72 or renewal under Section 81 made by the named holder of a specified permit in an approved scheme, he should enclose an authenticated copy of the
- 47 -
approved scheme, the details of the route on which he was plying his stage carriage with corridor restrictions on over lapping routes. The RTA or STA, as the case may be, should verify the original scheme under which the named operator, whose specified permit was saved, whether he is entitled to ply the stage carriage in the approved scheme with the condition of the corridor restrictions on the notified scheme and if so to what extent. What is the duration of his right saved in the approved scheme? Whether he had plied his stage carriage on complying with the law in force? His right to permit under Section 72 or renewal under Section 81 cannot be higher than the original right saved in the approved scheme. The STU also should be heard in that behalf. On consideration of these and all other relevant facts in relation to grant of stage carriage permit or renewal thereof, the appropriate authority may grant or reject; in the later event, for reasons to be recorded in support of the rejection. The authorities should consider their applications in accordance with the law and the prescribed procedure and may grant new permits under Section 72 and later on before the expiry thereof, to renew it in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 80 and 81,
- 48 -
that too on compliance with law, until the scheme is duly modified or cancelled in accordance with law. We reiterate that this right is available exclusively to the named private operators and that too in respect of the specified permits and with same restrictions continued in the scheme and none else and no more.
63. Since the appellants had obtained permits by mistake of the law and misconception of law on the part of the competent authorities applied under Section 81 and had been granted renewal of their respective permits under Section 81 after July 1, 1989, such grant of renewal of the permits should be treated to be temporary permits under Section 87 of the Act. Therefore, the private operators, be they covered by Chapter V or VI, should apply for and obtain afresh permits before the expiry of the period mentioned in their respective permits or renewed for consideration under Section 71 and grant under Section 72 of the permits afresh consistently with Section 2(31) of the Act. Such permit alone would be a permit defined in Section 2 (31) of the Act. Thereafter, before expiry thereof, they shall apply for and the concerned STA/RTA person authority may grant or refuse renewals of
- 49 -
permit for reasons to be recorded under Section 81 of the Act."
18. In terms of the said judgment, the right to permit under Section 72 or renewal under Section 81 cannot be higher than the original right saved in the approved Scheme. The argument canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placing reliance on the modified approved Scheme of 2003 do not hold water in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, cited supra.
19. It is manifestly clear that the private operators are not entitled to operate on any part or portion of the notified route or area on the ground that the permit as originally granted to them covered the notified route or area. The same analogy applies to the cases on hand as regards the variation of permit conditions. Mere grant of variation of conditions of grant with additional trips/vehicles on application under
- 50 -
Section 80(3) of the Act would not entitle the operators to claim that the permits are saved with variation unless the modified Scheme specifically provides for. These aspects are rightly analysed by the Tribunal while setting-aside variation of conditions of the permits of the petitioners with additional trips/additional vehicles.
20. No valid ground made out by the Operators to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Tribunal.
Writ petition Nos.2001/2005 c/w 2011/2005, 13059/2005, 14926/2005, 24896/2005, 44750/2004, 22907/2005, 24568/2005, 267/2006 and 14173- 14175/2011 filed by the operators stand dismissed.
W.P.Nos.10180/2008 c/w 10181/2008, 10185/2008 and 18775/2011 filed by the Corporation stand allowed.
After the orders were pronounced in the open Court, Sri.B.R.S.Gupta, learned counsel for the
- 51 -
Operators prayed that the operative portion of the order may be suspended for a period of four weeks to enable them to prefer the appeal.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the operative portion of the order is suspended for a period of four weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE ln.