IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION.No.393/2016 (MV) BETWEEN :
SMT.B.N.VIMALAKSHI W/O P.RAMAKRISHNA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT 6/85, BRAHMIN’S STREET VINAYAKANAGAR, GOWRIBIDANUR ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SRIKANTH.A., ADV.) AND :
1. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY M.S.BUILDING NOW AT K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE – 27.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MUSHIRABAD MAIN ROAD HYDERABAD – 560020.
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HAREESH.T.BHANDARY, ADV FOR R2, SRI VIJAYA KUMAR.A.PATIL, AGA FOR R1, SRI L.T.GOPAL, ADV FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN RP.NO.621/2013 DATED 09.10.2015 WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-3 TO THE WRIT PETITION. ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) in R.P.No.621/2013 dated 09.10.2015 (Annexure-E).
2. The petitioner filed an application for grant of stage carriage permit for the route Gowribidanur to Pavagada and back. Joint Route Survey was conducted and report was submitted by the RTO, Chikkaballapur on 19.05.2007. The first respondent considered the application of the petitioner at the meeting held on 08.02.2013 and rejected the application of the petitioner based on the joint route survey report. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal which came to be rejected. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel Sri.Srikanth, appearing for the petitioner placing reliance on the letter of the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Sub-division, Pavagada dated 18.08.2007, contends that the PWD department has certified that the road between the State border to Macharajanahalli, at about distance of 3.00 kms is road worthy, formulated by mud road recently and heavy motor vehicles can be run. This material was not available with the petitioner at the time of appeal proceedings and as such the same was not produced before the Tribunal. The first respondent without considering the road worthiness of the route in question, only based on the joint route survey, rejected the application. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the first respondent as the petitioner has not produced material to discard the joint route survey. In view of the certificate issued by the PWD department in the month of August 2007, the same requires to be considered as regards the road worthiness in question.
4. Learned counsel Sri.Hareesh.T.Bhandary, appearing for the second respondent and the learned AGA appearing for the first respondent supporting the impugned orders, submit that the Tribunal consciously affirmed the order of the first respondent based on the route survey report dated 19.05.2007, which clearly establishes that there was no formation of roads for a distance of 3 kms from AP-Karnataka state border to Masarajapalli, also overlaps 0.2 km in AP state. The Motor Vehicles Department has its own mechanism to ascertain the road worthiness and cannot depend on the certificates said to have been issued by the other departments. It is submitted that the certificate issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Sub-division has no credence in the proceedings in question.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the application of the petitioner for grant of fresh stage carriage permit was considered on the basis of the route survey report dated 19.05.2007, which indicates that there is no formation of road for a distance of about 3 kms from AP- Karnataka state border to Masarajapalli and further the route overlaps 0.2 km in AP state. On appeal, the Tribunal profusely analyzed the material on record and has rightly come to a conclusion that the rejection of the application is justifiable. Now, the endeavor made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the certificate said to have been issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Sub-division dated 18.08.2007 at Annexure-B has to be considered, do not inspire any confidence to give preference to this certificate against the route survey report conducted by the Motor Vehicle Department. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequent to the rejection of application of the petitioner in the year 2011, the Authorities have granted fresh stage carriage permit to the other operators.
6. It is trite that the routes and the grant of permit depends on the route survey report. If there is any changed circumstances subsequent to joint route survey dated 19.05.2007, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the Authorities by filing fresh application, seeking fresh stage carriage permit. If such an application is filed, the same shall be considered by the Authorities in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.
Sd/- JUDGE NC