IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL NO.1442 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. B.G.KRISHNAMURTHY, SON OF M.P.GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, SRI VENKATESHWARA MOTOR SERVICES, NO.9 – A, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN – 560 001.
2. B.V.VIKRAM, SON OF B.G.VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, SRI VENKATESHWARA MOTOR SERVICES, NO.9 – A, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN – 560 001.
3. M. VENKATESH, SON OF B.P.GANGADHAR, AGED 57 YEARS, SRI VENKATESHWARA MOTOR SERVICES, NO.9 – A, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN – 560 001.
4. B.G.VENKATESH SON OF M.P.GANGAPPA, AGED 66 YEARS, SRI VENKATESHWARA MOTOR SERVICES, NO.9 – A, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN – 560 001.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI M.E.NAGESH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE SECRETARY, KARNATKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN - 560 027.
2. Y.M.SURESH BABU, SON OF LATE MUDDANNA, AGE MAJOR, NO.5 / 13, RAMALAYAM STREET, PENUKONDA, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH – 5155110.
3. V. SUBRAMANYAM SON OF LATE MUDDANNA, AGE MAJOR, NO.5 / 14, RAMALAYAM STREET, PENUKONDA, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH – 5155110.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI A.SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;
SRI.V.SUBASH RDDY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGHCOURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 22.03.2018 PASSED IN W.P.NOs.10070- 10077 OF 2016 AND TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 27.11.2019 COMING ON THIS DAY, M.NAGAPRASANNA J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 22nd March 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.10070-10077 of 2016 whereby the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the order passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’ for short), and dismissed the Writ Petition, the writ petitioners have preferred the instant writ appeal.
2. The parties will be referred as per their rankings in the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge.
3. The petitioners claim to be existing inter- State stage carriage operators. The first petitioner is the holder of a stage carriage permit No.2/1958 for the route Pasakere to Gowribidanur via Hindupur. The 2nd petitioner is the holder of inter-State stage carriage permit No.24A & 24B/1975 for the route Anathapur to Bangalore and back via Somadepalli Cross to N.S.Gate. The 3rd petitioner is the holder of inter-State stage carriage permit No.34/1962 & 34A/ 1962 for the route Pulikunte to Bathalapalli and Bangalore via Gowribidanur and N.S.Gate. The 4th petitioner is the holder inter-State stage carriage permit No.16A, 16B, 16C & 16D/1962 for the route Bangalore to Dharmavaram and Bangalore to Hindupur via Gowribidanur, N.S.Gate and Hindupur. It is also the claim of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent was holder of inter-Stage stage carriage permit No.10/52 for the route Peuru to Darinayakanahalli via N.S.Gate, Chinnakothapalli, Penukonda, Hindupur, Gowribidanur and back to perform one round trip with one vehicle. It is their assertion that the 2nd respondent was granted this permit under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 and the route of the permit was included in the inter-State agreement entered into between the State of Karnataka and the State of Andhra Pradesh on 19.09.1975 and thereafter, the Kolar Pocket Scheme as exempting inter-State route permits granted as per inter-State agreement dated 1.09.1975. The petitioners assert that the 2nd respondent was a saved operator in respect of stage carriage permit No.10 of 1952 for the route Peuru to Darinayakanahalli.
4. The petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing revision petitions against the order passed by the Secretary, KSTA dated 16.06.2015 whereby the Authority dismissed the claim of the petitioners, who had opposed the grant of counter-signature without ascertaining and verifying discrepancy in the line of travel, that is the route specified in the inter-State agreement as also the line of travel of permit of the 2nd respondent therein who is also the 2nd respondent in the appeal.
5. The Karnataka State Transport Authority by its order dated 16.06.2015 granted counter-signature of renewal of permit Nos.10/52A and 10/52B of respondent Nos.2 and 3 valid up to 8.05.2020 covered by motor vehicles Nos. AP-02/AV- 5558 and AP-02/V 6173 respectively relating to the route Peuru to Darinayakanahalli via., Nagasamudra Gate, Chinnakothapalli, Penukonda, Hindupur and Gowribidanur and back to perform one round trip per day by each vehicle for a period of five years from 9.05.2015 to 8.05.2020 on single point tax basis in terms of the inter-State agreements dated 1.09.1975 and 7.03.2008.
6. This was challenged by the petitioners before the Tribunal by filing revision petitions in R.P.No.304 of 2015 and connected cases. The Tribunal by its order dated 9.12.2015 rejected the revision petitions upholding the order of grant of counter-signature in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 with regard to inter-State permit. This came to be challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.10070-10077 of 2016. It was the case of the petitioners before the learned Single Judge that the objection put forth by them before the 1st respondent was not taken into consideration while granting the counter-signature. The objection by the petitioners was with regard to the power of the authority to have split the single permit into two and after having split the single permit into two could not have affixed the countersignature. It was the further contention of the petitioners that overlapping of the route which they had objected to before the Authority as well as before the Tribunal was completely ignored. The learned Single Judge found that the petitioners have not made out a case to interfere with the order of the Tribunal holding that when a detailed consideration was made by the Tribunal, the findings having been arrived to reject the revision petitions upholding the order of the 1st respondent, the Writ Court cannot re- appreciate the same in a petition of this nature, in which judicial review was limited. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the instant writ appeal.
7. Heard Sri M.E. Nagesh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Kiran Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1, Sri A Srikanth, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri V. Subash Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent No.3.
8. The petitioners are the existing inter-State stage carriage permit holders who have been granted permits in Karnataka. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are inter-State stage carriage permit operators who have been issued permits by the Transport Authority at Hyderabad, pursuant to inter-State agreements entered into between the State of Karnataka and State of Andhra Pradesh. The State Transport Authority at Hyderabad granted one additional trip by way of variation in the permit. The issue was with regard to the grant of counter-signature by the State of Karnataka in terms of inter-State agreements. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 approached the 1st respondent-Karnataka State Transport Authority for the grant of counter-signature of permit No.10/52 and it was their contention that they were entitled to the counter-signature as it was an addition to the already existing permit in permit No.10/52 which read as 10/52A and 10/52B and this permit was included in Annexure-VIII of supplemental inter-State agreement entered into between the State of Karnataka and State of Andhra Pradesh.
respondent Nos.2 and 3 contending that there cannot be two new numbers to an old permit and the countersigning Authority viz., the 1st respondent has got full power as that of the original authority to make inquiry about the procedure followed by the State Transport Authority, Hyderabad while granting variation of permit by way of additional trip to a third person. The 1st respondent did not accede to the contentions of the petitioners and by rejecting the objections, granted counter-signature stating that additional trip with a new number had been included in the inter-State agreement dated 7.03.2008 and there was amendment to the Scheme to exempt the permit as per amendment dated 5.01.2013 by its order dated 16.06.2015. This was challenged by the petitioners before the Tribunal in separate revision petitions. The Tribunal affirmed the order passed by the 1st respondent on the ground that variation in permit was not challenged by the petitioners and the counter-signature on the variation of permit granted was valid and no right of the petitioners was taken away by grant of variation of permit or of counter- signature of such variation. The Tribunal dismissed the revision petitions by its order dated 9.12.2015. This was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.10070-10077 of 2016. The learned Single Judge has noticed that the grant of permit by splitting into two and renewing the same was not challenged by the petitioners in a manner known to law. The only issue that was urged before the learned Single Judge was with regard to the grant of counter-signature. Since the permit was granted by another Authority, the learned Single Judge was of the view that such contention was not justified. Insofar as overlapping of the route is concerned, it was observed that the Tribunal had taken into consideration the aspect of overlapping in detail while considering point No.2 which was raised before the Tribunal and with reference to the extent of the route and the manner in which it proceeds were considered in detail. This being a factual aspect which was appropriately made by the Tribunal, the learned Single Judge declined to re-appreciate the same and dismissed writ petitions.
10. The contention of the petitioners in this appeal is that consideration of counter-signature could not have been made in view of the order dated 8.12.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.4950 of 2008 wherein this Court had quashed Annexures-VIII and IX appended to the inter-State agreement in terms of Notification dated 7.03.2008. The order in the Writ Petition dated 8.12.2010 with regard to Annexures- VIII & IX appended to the agreement reads thus:
“35. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above and a writ of certiorari will issue and the final agreement/notification in No.SaRiE 2 TMI 2003 dated 7-03-2008 dated 7-03-2008 is quashed in so far as it relates to Annexures-
VIII and IX appended to the agreement/ notification are concerned, reserving liberty as indicated above.”
This was challenged before the Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.5536-40 of 2011 and connected cases. The Division Bench allowing the writ appeals held thus:
“7. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.4950 of 2008 and other connected matters dated 8.12.2010 is hereby modified holding that the said order will not bind the appellants and their permits and it is made it very clear that the said order is confined to the Sl.Nos. 43, 68 and 69 of Venkataramanappa who was the 3rd respondent before the learned single Judge. It is also made it clear, against the order passed by the learned single Judge, Venkataramanappa has also filed separate appeal which will be dealt with separately. Wherever the appellants are not parties before the learned single Judge, no relief was sought against them.”
This being the position, as Annexures-VIII and IX remained quashed with regard to Sl.Nos. 43, 68 and 69 relating to Venkataramanappa only, who was the respondent in those proceedings, the other aspects which had been set aside in the writ petition stood restored. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that the counter-signature granted by the Authority which was affirmed by the Tribunal as also by the learned Single Judge is erroneous, cannot be accepted. It is further contended that bifurcation of single stage carriage permit into two would not be sustainable in terms of Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act. This is not the ground urged by the petitioners either before the Tribunal or before the learned Single Judge. The only ground that the petitioners have been urging through out was with regard to the grant of countersignature and not with regard to bifurcation and renewal of permit.
11. In our considered view, the petitioners have not made out any case warranting interference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Cs Ct-MJ