Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The Tribunal held that the section between Mysore Bus Stand -Sanatorium - District Border (9.5 KM), on the Mysore - Pumphouse -KRS Route, was a notified route on which private operators are excluded. The Tribunal, however found that the alternative route suggested by the permit holders did not involve any overlapping, even though the said route traversed the notified route, on two short stretches of 200 M and 54 M. The Tribunal also held that traversing the sections between Paschimavahini - Srirangapatna - Kirangur Cross and Kirangur Cross to Lokapavani Bridge did not amount to overlapping of any notified route as the first stretch fell within the town limits of Srirangapatna and the second stretch fell within the village limits of Kirangur. Consequently the Tribunal allowed the appeals and directed renewal of the permits subject however to deviation of the route between Mysore Bus Stand and District Border through the alternative route.

Re: W.P. 26187 to 26198/1992.

7. The first contention of KSRTC is that the Tribunal, having found that the routes in regard to which renewals were sought traversed the notified route Mysore Town - Sanatorium - District Border, ought to have rejected the appeals instead of considering an alternative route and granting permit in regard to a deviated route. In MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. B.T. RUDRAMANI AND ORS., C.A. Nos. 1255-56 of 1975 DD 23.11.1989, the Supreme Court held that in the case of a stage carriage permit held for several years, if it is found that the route overlapped a notified route, the permit shall however be continued till its expiry and the question of overlapping should be considered at the time of renewal, so that the permit holder can suggest an alternative route after curtailing the overlapping portion. As what can be done by the original authority can also be done by the Appellate Authority, the Tribunal itself considered the availability of the alternative route. If the permit could be saved by deviation or curtailment and if the permit holder is agreeable for the same, it is the duty of the Authority to consider it. Hence the first contention is rejected.

8. The second contention of KSRTC is that the alternative route between Mysore Bus Stand to District Border suggested by the permit holders and accepted by the Tribunal involves two overlappings to an extent of 200 Mtrs from Metagalli Police Station Hebbal Cross and 600 Mtrs from Sunanda Aromatic Factory cross to District Border, and that it also passed through a private road and therefore the alternative route should be rejected. This involves three questions: What is the extent of traversing of the notified route by the non-notified route; and whether the alternative route passes through any private road; and whether traversing of the notified route at two places, amount to overlappings or intersections. The first and second are pure questions of fact and the third is a mixed question of fact and law. In regard to such questions, if the Authority, having taken note of the relevant facts and legal principles, has properly reached a conclusion, this Court in exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction will not interfere with such a finding, particularly when the fact finding has been done by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, a Senior District Judge, by local investigation in the presence of parties.

8.2. According to KSRTC the alternative route passed through some private roads in the Industrial Layout formed by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, a Statutory Body, and therefore could not be accepted. KSRTC did not produce any material to show that the roads in the said Industrial Layout are private roads. Having inspected the entire length of the alternative route, the Tribunal did not find that any part of the route was either non-motorable or not open to public. In the light of the Tribunal's personal verification, the contention of KSRTC that the alternative route passes through a private road cannot be accepted. It may be mentioned that by letter dated 26.4.1995, KIADB has confirmed that it has formed the roads in its layout for the use of public and therefore it has no objection for use of the roads in the Industrial Layout by any private transport operators.