Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. At the instance of the petitioner, her permit was varied by adding two cut trips from Kasargode- Badiyadaka and Kasargode-Perala. These cut trips were countersigned by the authorities in Kerala. But when variation came up for renewal, the first respondent, the State Transport Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, rejected the same on the  W.P.(C).23488/2008 ground that the cut trips granted by the primary authority are not covered by an interstate agreement. The appellate Tribunal confirmed the same vide judgment in M.V.A.A.157/2004. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had applied before the Karnataka State Transport Authority for curtailing two cut trips. At the same time, the said authority at the instance of the petitioner granted one more additional trip between Kasaragode-Puthur. But there was a delay on the part of the petitioner in getting the round trip endorsed in the permit and therefore, countersignature was also not obtained.

3. It was in the year 2004 that the petitioner again approached the Karnataka State Transport Authority for revival of the round trip granted to the petitioner from Kasargode to Puthur as early as on 1.6.1986. The said authority considered the petitioner's application for deletion of the additional trip from Kasargode to Perala and from Kasargode to Badiyadaka and simultaneous inclusion of an additional round trip to the existing permit on the  W.P.(C).23488/2008 route Kasargode-Puthur. The cut trips were directed to be deleted and taking note of the fact that an additional round trip was granted to the petitioner on the route Kasargode-Puthur as early as in 1986, but the same was not caused to be endorsed by the petitioner, by Ext.P1 proceedings. Karnataka State Transport authority imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner and condoned the delay in obtaining endorsement of variation in relation to the additional round trip from Kasargode-Puthur.

4. The petitioner then approached the authorities in Kerala for countersignature on the additional round trip. By Ext.P3, the first respondent rejected the petitioner's application for countersignature on the ground that three round trips have already been allotted to Karnataka operators in the Kasargode- Puthur route. Therefore, the additional trip endorsed in favour of the petitioner cannot be operated as there is no vacancy.

W.P.(C).23488/2008

5. The petitioner challenged Ext.P3 before the appellate Tribunal in M.V.A.A.193/2006. It was contended that the finding that there is no vacancy to accommodate the additional round trip granted by the primary authority in favour of the petitioner is not correct. It was contended that three round trips were originally allotted. Three round trips in the Kasargode-Puthur route is covered by the interstate agreement. Two of them were allotted to the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and one of them was allotted to the petitioner as early as in 1986. One Honnayya had submitted an application for the grant of an additional round trip between Kasargode and Puthur on the ground that one of the round trips allotted to the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation was not operated. In effect therefore, the aforementioned Honnayya had asked for an allotment of a round trip from Kasargode to Puthur in the vacancy caused by the non operation of the Karnataka State Road Transport Authority in one of the two trips allotted to the Corporation. Karnataka State  W.P.(C).23488/2008 Transport Authority granted it in favour of Honnayya but subject to the countersignature of the Kerala Authorities. Honnayya's application for countersignature came to be rejected by the Kerala authority and he preferred an appeal against the same as M.V.A.A.373/2004. The appellate Tribunal vide judgment dated 28.2.2005 found that the trip granted to Sri.Honnayya was one of the two trips granted to the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation covered by the interstate agreement. Honnayya's appeal was therefore, allowed by Ext.P4 judgment and it has now come about that the same was later directed to be implemented by this Court. But I will refer to the said fact at a later stage.

7. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit supporting the claim. I heard Mr.A.Inees, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Sudha Devi, learned Government Pleader.

8. It is evident from the orders of the State Transport Authority, Karnataka, as also from the impugned orders that three round trips from Kasargode to Puthur is covered by the interstate agreement between the two States. It is also evident that two round trips were originally granted in favour of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and one round trip was granted in favour of the petitioner. It is clear from Ext.P15 proceedings of the State Transport authority,  W.P.(C).23488/2008 Bangalore, that the allotment of a round trip in favour of Sri.Honnayya was in a vacancy caused by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation not operating one out of the two trips granted in its favour. It is further clear from Ext.P16 judgment of this Court that respondents in the said case namely, the Transport Authorities in Kerala, were directed to implement the judgment of the appellate Tribunal, marked as Ext.P4 in this case, by granting countersignature in favour of Sri.Honnayya. These facts are further substantiated by Ext.P8 communication sent by the Karnataka State Transport Authority. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, a round trip was sanctioned in her favour in the route Kasaragode-Puthur for the year 1986 and there was delay on the part of the petitioner in getting the same endorsed in the permit. But later, her application for condonation of delay in getting the endorsement was condoned and subject to levy of an amount of Rs.10,000/- as fine, she was permitted to revive the round trip from Kasaragode to Puthur granted earlier. If that  W.P.(C).23488/2008 be so, the premise on which the Kerala State Transport Authorities have rejected the application for countersignature as is evident by Exts.P6, P8 and P11 does not seem to be correct. Though these aspects were sought to be highlighted before the Tribunal vide Ext.P10 Review Petition, same has also not merited an appropriate consideration.