Karnataka High Court
K A Ramakrishnaraju vs Karnataka State Transport Authority on 6 January, 2010
Bench: Manjula Chellur, A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT £3ANGAi.OF3:'E_
DATED THIS THE cf" DAY or 3ANuAR~r, 2010
PRESENT
THE é-lOi'\i'BLE MRSJUSTICE M-Am'a.i,A
&
THE §-iON'E3-LE MR. JUSTICE A.A:.v'ENor3oPATLA...'g'Cs-ov~JL§.§..,,,,:"'E'A
WRIT APPEAL E\:os.i3..3f--"'2..34/2009'Hviv)
BETWEEN:
K.A. Ramakrishnaraju,
S/o. Sri. K./Anantharaju,
Aged about 40 years, "
Manighatta road,'
Behind C0urt.Com;§l_Qx,"l<pEar,_.
Kolar District. " » r
(By Prasadi $e'r'ni«or'V§Counsel for
Sri. M.R.Ven_ka'tar1a_rasiit'nh'a{;h.ar_'& SrE.A.Sril<anl:h, Advs.)
APPELLANT
AND:
1. KaArn.ataka"'State..Tra'ns§5ort Authority,
D.r;.gAm'oedkar"vee_dhAi,, Bangaiore »~ 1
E5y'its.A"Secretary.' """ "
V'. m y,
_ S/fo..¥<arT;£,asV\Aia"my Mooaléar,
Kamasah1iJo"ram village,
Ba-nga'roe.t"'TaEuk, Kolar District.
T Kgarriataka State Road Transport
Corporation, K.H.Double Roao,
it 2 V'S-hantinagar, Bangalore -- 570 027
'gay its Managing Director. RESPONDENTS
Sml; A.R.S%Taradamba, AGA) agreement. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'KSRTC') objected to the said prayer. 2"" respondent, a private Operator, atso raised obj.e"ct:i_on's,, before the Authority. The Authority as per its T- heid on 16.09.2006 and the resoiu.tien__'dated2v2';§.'j10'§'?.0_0V6 resolved to grant fresh stage carrigagréiperimifit' :0"/_thé?i_:
timings and conditions record:e'd..V_ the'r'ei_ni_(Ah_ne_§<'uir.e-*'C). Permit No.8/2006~07 tothe v.ehii'Cii.e"'b,earin'g--..r,eg,istration E\io.KA~07~D-3555, to "'ba,--.v'a_iid"i. f4ro,rif...,AV.i0&3.11.2006 to 07.11.2011, was_iss_ued.i('Ani';e,xo're}>Q).021Apoieiiant made an appiication __on*...,bef'ore the' State Transport Authority, grant of Counter signature.
The same 'was grVa'nt'éd (Anne><t;re~E). 2""
E'€SpO.i_§:"i.dE3E'"i1'. chaVi'ie._nged the proceedings of the Authority as filing Revision Petition i\io.899/2006 in chaiienged the said grant in Revision A . Petition '!\io.'s'}"06/2006 fiied in the Tribunal. The Tribunai ""v.""€,gr*ai~.,tedTan interim order of stay of the order as at A"nne>t:ure ~ C, on 24.11.2006, which was made absoiute A "on 07.02.2007, which order was put in challenge by the K':
appeliant in W.P.No.2088/2007, wherein the reiief prayed was not granted, but, the Tribunai was directed to of the revision petitions. Tribunal by a com_rnon:"'o.rjder'-.-1'0- dated 02.05.2007, aiiowed both the.r.eyisior--i"p'e'tit_i:Qn'Si and set--aside the grant of permit rriade oi/i favour of the appetlant. The of the Trigbiiinaipwas -put in chaiienge by the appetiant: ing_.th:e._wr.i_t petition. Vgvliiearned Single Judge has diSE;f't'§'gSed'-_. the -petition, being fit» aggrieved by whicii,,_.thisia'p'p--efaI
3. §ri .':.Prasa'd, learned senior counsei,'dVapVpeiariing thejappevliiiant contended that, the order pazs'sed- irripugned in the writ petition is bad both on facts.:--an"d iriiaw, since the route in question not.":'ccii,-.,ered by'Hth"e'"Koiar Pocket Scheme for a distance ~v4i~"(m:s_'V,.and the said scheme is not a scheme of coni.pieteV..e><xf:usion, but, is oniy a scheme of partiat 3-«,_"exciusion_A'iand hence, the permit granted to the appeiiant "*b_ein_g4"'g_«vaiid, ought not have been interfered with by the Tribunat. He contended that, the order passed by the Tribtsnai being iltegai, should have been quashed by the iearned Singie Eudge and in not doing so, iearneti Singte Judge has erred in the matter and consequen'Lri.y interference is called for.
4. The point for consideration is:
"Whether the Tr'i'buna/ was justifi.ecffj. aside the proceedings ofthe A7u.thOrI'ty No.82/2006 dated 15.09.--i2_oo5, prono't¢ic¢d"».g'h"
25.10.2006 (Anneg_<ure~C)g_?__u':'~__ .0 S. Indisputedlyfthe ovtergtgaps the notified route ofv"i<oEai"j;Po:cir_e--t "Sc'hetne"'b--e'tween KGF and State Border. __has been pubhshed under Section the Azithority shah not grant any permit .--'i.t_exce'p'§. inaccordiance.with the provisions of the scheme V.H,an~d"'Lhe~Aii~th'ority_ has no jurisdiction either to grant permit or"to"*graritV-V'$jar'iation in the teeth of the scheme, as was Uheid by i"Ch..i&i4COUft in the case reported at KR 1991 Kar V' '(ft 2V902".«._In the said case, this court has considered an issue reiating to the inter~s3tate route onty, the route in question I'/' xv.-
(3 was Bangalore to Maclanapalli and the scheme in question was the Kolar Pocket Scheme. The ratio of decis%on squarely applies to the matter and was right in placing reliance upon th,e..s.a_me _-toov«et'ru'i'e,'thex.V contention of the appellant that, if:":thef_r'_AeA~'iVs an agreement, the permits can"l.be.,..granted .to".,the"'-prii\_»ate operators, though the route over.l_aips_ a.,_notéfied..r_oute.
6. A perusal of shows that, the State Tra;'i*1ép§,tt enabled to operate the ro,u*tes to the complete e><clus%o'nof'Aotplgelw,persons, the existing permit holders the who were enabled to continue such Vgvi/itve,r.+sta.te""routes, subject to the condition 'xv'"'that,._.thei-or perrnétV"s"r"i'a'll be rendered ineffective for the p"or:t'i_ons of the notified routes and that, except thecategolriiiegsfiunder Clauses (a) & Clause (b) of Clause T'i1e_A'1~or§gihai scheme was modified and the one """a_,Al3'~!3.,*_"'.€45g'$.'-'ed on 07.132003 shows that, to claim exemption under the said scheme, two conditions have to be fulfilled, 'lg, /_ nameiy (1) the permit shouid have been granted and issued by the Transport Authorities between 10.01x.'i,_9'8,0 and 31.07.1999 on the inter~State, interuDi_s'tric.tj~...ari'd,42 Entra--District routes overiappirig the road notified routes iying in the schemefiaof date of issue of draft notifiCa,_tion V"o_n"27.0S"i2V0,003, permit shouid be existing or tVh'e._v'g:op_erat'or-- ',_opvera':tjing the service, which means permit shouid be current, Thus. as on 27.05.2003 by this court in the case of GO'W[ViAx'VS. STATE, reported in ILR:7.._A2O-06 order was affirmed in w.A.No.307'";cfj/05 "on"tV,251,:'i'~.:.,éooS. In W.A i\io.1783/06 (\/.(;,,r_3_%fp'i'V rvs. 8:: Others) vide Judgment dated identicai issue was considered and f'oEld.w,i«ng'«the'~9i:,'DVi.vision Bench decision, which affirmed V --V Ragh'upa---thi"(9owda's Case, it was heid that, the permit was granted on 3004,1998 was not vaiid as on .9 2705,2003 and as such, the appeilant did not fail under 9 "the exempted category and not eniied to permit and x?' operate the services. Chalienge put to the said decision, was negativeci by the Apex Court in S.L.P No.1294/O"? on 02.02.2007. Hence it is ciear that, the Kolar ,9oc':é{e_t Scheme bars any kind of permits namely, inter'%'sta..te..:_os:._4_'*_ intra~state overlapping the routes notified undo»: '
7. Reliance piaced by the §eau'rneld_senior.,Co~Li,nSe:.:o~nV2'* the decisions in the case of (1)--._,,iii'a._mnatli.__Ve.i:rna VVs'}V"'State of Rajasthan (19e3(2) sce 1s2----,- {:2-)"'At3dul }'~ia~i.. Khan Vs. Subai Chandra Ghose 8: 43) and (3) The Mysore St.a.i.e;' v.RoadhWira'vnspotf_--..Corpo?ation Vs. The Mysore:'il?';e'V\ken.,a§vfe_ A:ip;§ei:i'at,ei Tr'i'l_j'Vij'nVa:l & Others (1967(1) Mys.L.J xi-48)., are'rot.,_'nvo_:l'i'a.s'sistance to the case of the appellant, in'-»aVs .¥}"§}':.jCl"iv_ as', the schemes which feli for "V"«=:'_onsv-iidera-t.ion_ andllwerev considered in the said decisions, hdiid' notp'e,rtaih.,,:to--..i<olar Pocket Scheme and hence, has no ap'pli,c'ation,"Even otherwise, in View of the pronouncement the Court in the cases reported at AIR 1974 SC *§.f~;i<;o,'-«Pate 1986 sc 319 & AIR 1968 St: 1095, it is clear ...Wtha%t, the grants made must be strictly in accordance with L /7, 9 the terms of the schemes invoived and not otherwise._..___The decision of this court reported in HR 1991 Kar that of the Apex Court reported at AIR V' which pertain to the Koiar Pocke.t»~Sch'enfie,'Vih'a--y'c x'dvi.'_r:eCfv.. appiication and in view of the r'atio:_'_'toi; ia'w_"i'aivd_ dQo'i.i.:.r"ii. therein, the grant made in tijyvotigr ofihtheiap1peJi'a;n't"ibeing contrary to the Modified Koiarxy.Povc'k--et"--Scherne,v...ha.is rightly been setiaside by the Tr'i"bbr--*.ai'.--
8. The ;"a'pp.e1Fiant=A._ of fresh stage carriage '~--n.ot""i.§e3<isting operator on
27.O5.2:vOOM3tV. was in operation as on been saved under the Modified» Kolar F§Voci<.e--t Schénwe. Since the KSRTC has been £0 O!?erat'eé"th'eV services on ali the routes to the "=:ornpi'ete"-.excVi'uisi"o:n of other persons, except the saved perrr3__its, theiiiappeiiant being not an existing and saved %t'~.__"permit tioider, the grant made by the Authority in favour of "t:hev:a'pjpefiant as at Annexure~«C being iiiegaf, has rightfy
-._i"bee%n set-aside by the Tribunal. XQ 4/K
9. In the facts and Circumstances of the case, the iearned Single Eudge is justified in rejecting petition. We do not find any rnateriai error or _i'E;i'e'g'a£':'t~y _ the part of the Tribunai nor any error h8ViE1{}"CO¥:TEifl'ii't*Vft:€dAby?' the Iearned Single Judge in passéng[_the..injfpiigned'*o4rtie'r,si=3 t The writ appeai tacks henc.e:,"v_:sti'--aii"'stand dismissed. Ordered aCCO.r.dingi.\,.";"
at JUDGE sd/~ JUDGg