IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.12785/2018 (MV) BETWEEN:
J.R.R.RAHEEM KHAN S/O J.R.RASHEED KHAN, AGE 54 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, RTS BUS SERVICE, JAGALUR, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 528 …PETITIONER (BY SRI M.E.NAGESH, ADV.) AND:
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY DAVANAGERE, REP BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU-560027.
REP BY MANAGING DIRECTOR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADV. FOR R-2.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 19.01.2010 IN R.P.No.1676/2000 AS PER ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 dated 19.01.2010 in R.P.No.1676/2000 inter alia seeking for a direction to the respondent No.1 to allow the petitioner to prosecute the application for renewal of permit No.48/00- 01 as per the Notification dated 28.09.2017 issued by the Government of Karnataka.
2. The petitioner claims that he had been granted a stage carriage permit by the RTA for the route Jagalur to Kottur and back and timings were assigned and permit was issued on 29.6.2000 for the period from 31.08.2000 to 30.08.2005. The permit was further renewed on 7.4.2006 for the period from 31.08.2005 to 30.08.2010. The said permit was granted and renewed considering the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.403/1988 dated 17.11.1988.
3. Before adverting to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties relating to the applicability of the Notifications dated 28.9.2017 and 7.3.2019 issued by the Government of Karnataka, it is beneficial to glance through the various schemes published by the Government of Karnataka and the relevant judicial pronouncements in this regard in a nut shell.
4. The decision of the Full Bench in W.A.No.403/1988 was reversed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of KSRTC Vs. Ahrafulla Khan reported in AIR 2002 SC 629 observing that the State Government can modify the scheme to enable the private operators to operate their services. Taking note of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the State Government has amended the Bellary Scheme on 24.7.2003, Kolar Scheme on 7.11.2003, Bengaluru, BTS., and Mysuru Scheme on 31.5.2003 exempting the permits granted, issued and operating on the cut off date mentioned.
5. The amendment of the Kolar Scheme was challenged by the KSRTC in W.P.No.6616/2004, the amendment to Bengaluru, BTS., scheme dated 31.5.2007 was challenged in W.P.No.158/2008 and the Bellary Scheme in W.P.No.4030/2004. The matters were referred to the Division Bench along with all other connected cases. The Division Bench of this Court has set aside the amendments on the ground of want of reasons to the objections filed by the KSRTC and remanded the matters for re-consideration. The decision of the Division Bench was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.A.Linga Reddy Vs. State reported in AIR 2015 SC 767 and there was an order of stay and the matter came to be disposed of on 28.5.2004 confirming the order of the Division Bench, however with some observations to follow the directions issued by this Court while re-considering the matter. In the meanwhile, the arrangement made by the High Court to operate the services was made to continue. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Authority recognized by the State Government has heard the matter for re-consideration of amendment as directed by the Hon’ble Court. The Principal Secretary to the State Government without passing order on merits as per the remand order, withdrew the proposed amendment by issuing Notification dated 5.8.2015. This Notification was challenged by several operators and interim order was granted to operate services as they were operating as on 17.12.2014.
6. On the challenge to Notification dated 5.8.2015, in the batch of matters, this court has again remanded the matter for re-consideration by order dated 3.5.2017 reported in ILR 2017 page.4487 in the case of B. Athaulla Khan Vs. State. In compliance with the direction issued by this court, the Minister for Transports heard the matter and submitted report to the Government and thereafter the Notification dated 28.9.2017 was issued exempting the permits which are granted, issued and operating as on 14.1.2002. In the proceedings of the Hon’ble Minister dated 24.3.2018, an observation was made to further amend the scheme to save the permits which are issued after 14.1.2002. Hence, draft Notification for comprehensive area scheme saving the permits granted, issued and operating to the extent of the route and trips as on 18.12.2014 on scheme routes and as on 24.3.2018 on non scheme routes are saved. Finally the Notification dated 7.3.2019 has been issued by the Government of Karnataka after following the due procedure.
7. It is the main grievance of the petitioner that the Tribunal though noted Bellary Scheme amendments dated 31.3.2000 and 24.07.2003 saved the permits granted and issued between 10.1.1980 and 1.4.2000, failed to notice the fact that the renewal made prior to 1.4.2002 are saved by the Bellary Scheme amendment dated 24.3.2007 and 28.09.2017. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the 24.3.2003 and 24.03.2007 Bellary Scheme would not save the permit of the appellant ignoring the fact that the permit of the petitioner was valid and was covered with the vehicle on 14.1.2002 and hence the permit of the petitioner was a saved permit as on 19.1.2010, the date of passing of the order of the Tribunal.
8. Learned counsel for the KSRTC submitted that there is inordinate delay in challenging the order impugned dated 19.1.2010 and accordingly the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on delay and laches alone. Further learned counsel made an endeavour to justify the order impugned.
9. In view of the background of the case as narrated in paragraph No.2, the original permit granted to the petitioner pursuant to the decision of the Full Bench of this court in W.A.No.403/88 dated 17.11.1988 and the subsequent events finally now culminating in the Notifications dated 28.9.2017 and 7.3.2019 issued by the Government of Karnataka, the relief claimed by the petitioner requires to be considered .
10. It is true that there is delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this court challenging the order impugned dated 19.1.2010. This Court in catena of judgments has taken a pragmatic view in condoning the delay/granting extension of time to replace the vehicle and to obtain the endorsements in respect of the permits subject to payment of penalty of Rs.10,000/-. Considering the totality of the circumstances of the case, this court deems it appropriate to dispose of the matter with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application seeking for renewal of permit in terms of the Notifications dated 28.9.2017 and 7.3.2019 issued by the Government of Karnataka, subject to the petitioner paying penalty of Rs.10,000/- with the respondent No.1.
11. Accordingly writ petition stands disposed of setting aside the order impugned dated 19.1.2010 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in R.P.No.1676/2000 subject to payment of penalty of Rs.10,000/- with the respondent No.1 as aforesaid. On such application, if filed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered in terms of the Notifications dated 28.9.2017 and 7.3.2019 referred to above, after providing an opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders including the KSRTC.
open.
All the rights and contentions of the parties are left The compliance of the order shall be made in an expedite manner preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the application.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr/NC