IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL No.3824 OF 2017 (MV) BETWEEN:
SMT. B.N.VIMALAKSHI WIFE OF P.RAMAKRISHNA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.6/85, BRAHMINS STREET, VINAYAKA NAGAR, GOWRIBIDANUR. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI SRIKANTH.A., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU–560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU -560 027 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. ANDRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MUSHIRABAD MAIN ROAD, HYDERABAD–20.
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT No.1 SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.2, SRI L.T.GOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.3) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO i) SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.393/2016 DATED 28/03/2017 WHISH IS IMPUGNED HEREIN ii) REMAND THE MATTER TO 1ST RESPONDENT FOR RECONSIDERATION AFTER CONDUCTING FRESH JOINT ROUTE SURVEY REPORT AND DIRECT THEM TO PASS AN ORDER WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.393 of 2016, by which the petition was disposed off, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. The petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to set aside the order passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the KSTAT’) in R.P.No.621 of 2013 dated 09.10.2015 and to remand the matter to KSTAT for reconsideration. It is stated that the petitioner made an application to the first respondent on 22.01.2007 for grant of fresh inter-State 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. It is stated that the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Sub-division, Pavagada, certified the road worthiness of Macharajanapalli to a distance of 3 kilometers. It is further stated that there is no overlapping over the Andhra Pradesh scheme. The first respondent considered the application of the petitioner in its meeting held on 05.01.2013 and rejected the application of the petitioner stating that there is no formation of road for a distance of 3 kilometers from AP–Karnataka State border to Macharajanapalli and to an extent of 0.2 kilometers overlaps on Andhra Pradesh State Scheme. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed appeal before the KSTAT in appeal No.621 of 2013, contending that the first respondent without examining the Joint Route Survey report and letter of the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Sub-division, Pavagada, has rejected the application. The Tribunal on the ground that if there is no fit route available for movement of bus and if there is overlapping with any notified or scheme route the rejection of application is proper. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.
3. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application, if there is any changed circumstances subsequent to joint route survey dated 19.05.2007. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner is in appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsels for the respondents. Perused the appeal papers.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge committed an error in disposing off the writ petition. It is contended that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the road worthy report of Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Sub-division, Pavagada and further failed to properly look into the Andhra Pradesh Scheme. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that learned Single Judge ought to have looked into the report of the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Sub-division, Pavagada with regard to road worthiness. Thus, prays for allowing the writ appeal.
6. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents would support the order of the learned Single Judge and points out that the petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application, if there is any changed circumstances, which learned Single Judge has observed.
7. The petitioner made an application dated 22.01.2007 to the first respondent for grant of fresh inter-State stage carriage permit for the route Gowribidanur to Pavagada and back. The 1st respondent to consider the application of the petitioner directed the RTO, Chikkaballapur to submit joint survey of the route in question and to submit his report. The RTO, Chikkaballapur, conducted joint route survey and submitted his report on 19.05.2007. Based on the joint survey report, the first respondent considered the application of the petitioner and rejected the same. It is to be seen that the joint route survey report submitted had indicated that there is no motorable road from AP– Karnataka State border to Macharajanapalli for about 3 kilometers and there is small overlapping with Andhra Pradesh scheme. The Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Sub-division, Pavagada, in his letter dated 18.08.2007 submitted road worthy certificate. When the road worthiness is not found to be good in the joint route survey report, it is not appropriate to look into the letter issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Sub- division, Pavagada with regard to road worthiness. The first respondent-Karnataka State Transport Authority considering factual position and based on the route survey report submitted by the RTO, Chikkaballapur, has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of fresh inter-State stage carriage permit. The learned Single Judge has observed that the Tribunal on analyzing the material on record has rightly rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has produced Annexure-B dated 18.08.2007, the letter issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Sub-division, Pavagada. On going through the same, it would not indicate as to who sought information regarding road worthiness and for what purpose the same is addressed to the Transport Commissioner, Bengaluru. In the absence of any particulars, the said letter dated 18.08.2007 would be of no assistance to the petitioner. The learned Single Judge has rightly disposed of the writ petition with an observation that if there is any changed circumstances subsequent to joint route survey dated 19.05.2007, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Authorities by filing fresh application. We see no perversity or erroneousness in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE SMJ CT:bms