Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

i) of KSTDC

--

ii) of ITDC

--

iii) of Tourist car operators or travel agents approved by the Central Government falling under Clause (iv) of the proviso.

--

Total :

--

7. The Tribunal was of the view that having regard to the fact that KSTDC was an instrumentality of the State established soley for promoting tourism and as it had the financial capacity and other facilities like well equipped garage and workshops as also a group of hotels called "Mayura Hotel" at several places of tourist importance, it was entitled to grant of greater number of permits. Similarly, it was of the view that being an instrumentality of the Central Government, established solely for promoting tourism having the capacity to operate tourist vehicles throughout India, it was entitled to get more permits than granted by the S.T.A. The view taken by the S.T.A. that as ITDC was entitled to apply for T.V. Permits in all the States under preferential category whereas KSTDC could not, and therefore grant of one permit to ITDC was sufficient, was found to be unsustainable by the Tribunal. It pointed out if such a view were to be taken by all the S.T.As, the ITDC would be left high and dry. The Tribunal was of the view that grant of eight permits to KSTDC was justified and sufficient and that three permits should be granted to ITDC. As far as the grant of T.V. permits to KSRTC is concerned, in view of the interpretation of the proviso to Sub-section (7) of Section 63 by the Tribunal, it was of the view that, as the KSRTC did not fall under any one of the preferential categories and as there were sufficient number of applications belonging to preferential categories, there was no justification for the grant of the permits to the KSRTC. Therefore, the grant of two permits to the KSRTC made by the S.T.A. was set aside.

42. Sri A.S. Viswanath, Learned Counsel appearing for the ITDC per contra submitted that whereas KSTDC was only a Corporation established by the State for the purpose of tourism and therefore mainly concerned in operating to places of tourist interest in and nearby the State, the ITDC was an organisation sponsored by the Union of India for promoting tourism in the entire country and was the biggest foreign exchange earner and therefore more number of permits compared to the number of permits granted to the KSTDC should have been granted to ITDC. He pointed out that the STA granted only one permit to the ITDC stating that ITDC had the opportunity of applying for permits in other Stages also, whereas the KSTDC had the opportunity of applying for permits only in the Stale of Karnataka which reasoning was found to be untenable by the Tribunal. He submitted more number of permits ought to have been granted to the I.T.D.C.

92. It is mentioned in paragraph 50 that ITDC which is entitled to get permits from all the States from out of the quota made avilable by the Central Government, has already secured 42 All India Tourist Permits whereas KSTDC had been given only 1 permit although it was in possession of 35 already modern luxury buses which meet the specification laid down by the Government of India for All India Tourist Omni buses that it is an apex organisation of the State set up purely and exclusively for catering to tourism within the State and it is in a position to provide accommodation to the tourists in a chain of hotels popularly known as 'Mayura Group' of hotels situated within the State and also outside the State and therefore it is entitled to 11 permits out of 12 permits earmarked by it for the preferential group applicants. On that reasoning, it has granted 11 permits to KSTDC and only 1 permit to the ITDC. It has grunted the remaining 2 permits to the KSRTC by observing in paragraph 56 that it is the largest fleet owner in the State having more than 6 thousand buses with a well established reciprocal arrangements with all other States having a wide network of workshop and back facilities that is also the only agency to provide contract carriage buses to the public in the State and therefore the non-availability of tourist permit for the KSRTC was considered to be pathetic. The said approach of the KSTA is subject to scathing criticism by practically all the Learned Counsel for the appellants including the ITDC which is having grouse that it is granted only 1 permit although it is an organisation of All India Status and it is expected to cater to the requirements of the tourists all over the length and breadth of the country."

It may be seen from the order that there were in all 29 applications belonging to the preferential category. They were : 14 applications of K.S.T.D.C, 10 applications of ITDC, 3 applications of C. Das the petitioner in W. P. No 7061 and 7062 of 1985 and respondent-4 in W. P. No. 4053 to 4056 of 1985, 1 application of D.T. Sundar and one application of Mangalore Tourist Service-respondents in W.P. Nos. 4053 to 4056 of 1985. The Appellate Tribunal considered all the relevant facts such as financial stability, garage facility, establishment of a group of hotels called 'Mayura Hotels' and the capacity of the KSTDC to run efficient tourist buses and to promote tourism. The Appellate Tribunal also considered the fact that ITDC being an instrumentality of the Union of India constituted to promote tourism was having the financial stability and operational efficiency. It held that the view of the STA that there was scope for the ITDC to get permits in other States was, not correct for the reason that if in every State, the application of the ITDC were to be rejected on such a ground, it would be left high and dry. In the circumstances, having regard to the fact that only 14 permits were to be granted, the Appellate Tribunal has taken the view that granting of 8 permits in favour of the KSTDC, 3 permits in favour of ITDC and one permit in favour of each of the applicants falling under the fourth category was in public interest and accordingly it proceeded to grant the permits. The decision of the Appellate Tribunal is based upon the appreciation of the material on record and comparative merit of the applicants and its view that distribution of the number of permits among all the eligible and suitable applicants instead of granting all the applications of KSTDC or of ITDC was in public interest. Certainly such distribution promotes healthy competition and is in public interest. We find no patent error of law in the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal cannot be interfered with.