IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.2248-2251/2016 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. JAYASHREE PRABHUSWAMY, W/O LATE PRABHUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HOUSE NO.65, F BLOCK, 2ND CROSS, I STAGE, J.P.NAGAR, MYSURU – 570 001.
2. SMT. RAJAMA, W/O MAHADEVA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO.2790/IB, 14TH CROSS, BASAVESHWARA ROAD, K.R.MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570 001.
(BY SRI. SRIKANTH A, ADVOCATE) AND:
…PETITIONERS 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MYSORE REGION, LAKSHMIPURAM BY ITS SECRETARY, MYSURU – 570 001.
2. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 027.
3. SRI.M.N.ANAND KUMAR, S/O LATE M.S.NAGARAJAN, AGED: MAJOR, NO.4795/5, 1ST CROSS, TANK ROAD, N.R.MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570 007.
4. SRI.K.R.SHAMANNA, S/O K.P.RANGAIAH, AGED: MAJOR, SRI.CHAMUNDI MOTOR SERVICE, NO.72, VYSHNAVI ‘H’ BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSURU – 570 023.
5. SRI.SL PRASAD, S/O R.SRINIVASAN, AGE: MAJOR, NO.317, 13TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, SARASVATIPURAM, MYSURU – 570 009.
(BY SMT. KAVITHA H.C., HCGP FOR R1;
...RESPONDENTS SMT. SHWETHA ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI.S.V.KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R4 SERVED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 14.12.2015 IN RP NO.867, 868, 869 AND 870/2001 VIDE ANNEXURE – F AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the KSTAT in Appeal.Nos.867, 868, 869 and 870/2001 inter alia seeking a direction to respondent No.1 to conduct joint route survey only for the portion of route ie. from Dura to Mysuru and not for entire route as per the impugned order.
2. The petitioners had filed applications for grant of Stage Carriage Permits in certain routes but a decision was taken by respondent No.1-RTA to grant permits to the petitioner curtailing the route from Mysuru to Dura and Deviramanahalli Cross to Nanjangud bus stand. Against the said orders, the petitioners herein had preferred Appeal Nos.861, 868, 869 and 870/2001 whereas one of the rival private operater had filed Appeal No.996/2001 before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, which were clubbed together and by the common order dated 18.5.2007 the appeals were allowed partly, setting aside the curtailment of route from J.P.Nagar to Dura and confirming the rest of the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the KSRTC had preferred W.P.Nos.10178/2008 and 4530/2008 whereby this Court setting aside the order of the KSTAT dated 18.5.2007 remitted the matter to the KSTAT to re-examine whether the distance between Doora to Mysuru city comes within the definition of notified route and whether the State undertaking operators are operating the vehicles or not serving interest of the traveling public or whether there is scope for granting permit for private operators to treat the said specified route as not coming within the Scheme and thereafter to consider the case of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, the KSTAT has passed the impugned order partly allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to respondent No.1- RTA to conduct joint route survey and decide the issue inasmuch as the grant of permit is concerned. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. Learned counsel Sri. Srikanth. A. appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Tribunal grossly erred in setting aside the entire permit which is contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of D.P. Sharma .vs. State Transport Authority reported in ILR 1987(4) KAR 3255. It was argued that the order passed by the KSTAT on 18.5.2007 was not given effect to, by the RTA despite several requests/representations made by the petitioners. It was obligatory on the part of the first respondent to issue permit subsequent to grant of route and allow the petitioners to operate in the route specified. But the lackadaisical attitude of the RTA is the root cause for the petitioners to suffer an order at the hands of the KSTAT subsequent to the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.10178/2008 and connected matter. It is submitted that three joint route surveys were conducted earlier and that being the position there was no necessity for the KSTAT to again direct the RTA to conduct the joint route survey to decide, whether the route comes under the notified route or not. Indeed, no reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioners to put forth their submissions pursuant to the memo filed by the KSRTC inasmuch as the approved Bengaluru Scheme applicable for Mysuru City services. Hence, learned counsel seeks for setting aside the order impugned and to remit the matter to the KSTAT to put forth its case.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-KSRTC justifying the impugned order submitted that the order of the KSTAT dated 18.5.2007 has merged with the order of this Court dated 17.3.2011 in W.P.No.10178/2008 and connected matter and as such the petitioners cannot raise any grouse against the order or action of the RTA in not granting the permit pursuant to the order dated 18.5.2007. The KSTAT in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.10178/2008 and connected matter has rightly remitted the matter to the RTA for a fresh joint route survey and as such no fault can be found with the same. Placing reliance on the Government Notifications dated 28.9.2017 and 7.3.2019 it was submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to issue of permit. Accordingly, seeks for the dismissal of the writ petitions.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the order impugned has been passed by the KSTAT pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.No.10178/2008 and connected matter dated 17.3.2011. The grievance made by the petitioners inasmuch as non issuance of permits pursuant to the order of the KSTAT dated 18.5.2007 cannot be addressed at this stage since much water has flown under the bridge pursuant to the orders passed by the KSTAT. This Court in W.P.No.10178/2008 and connected matter indeed has set aside the said orders which culminated in the order impugned dated 14.12.2015. The petitioners if had the benefit of the order of the KSTAT dated 18.5.2007 were at liberty to move before the RTA for implementation of the said order at the relevant point of time but not at this length of time when that order is not in existence having been set aside by this Court in W.P.No.10178/2008.
6. The next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Tribunal has no power to review its order is wholly misconceived. The KSTAT has not reviewed its earlier order dated 18.5.2007 neither on the request made by any of the parties nor suo moto but has re-considered the matters on the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.10178/2008 and allied matter. As such, no exception can be found with the competency and the jurisdiction of the KSTAT to decide the matter afresh in the light of the directions issued by this Court. The order of the KSTAT is questioned yet on another ground, that multiple joint route survey would not be necessary, the said argument does not cut the ice. The KSTAT analyzing the material evidence in its wisdom thought it appropriate to remand the matter to the RTA to conduct a fresh joint route survey to arrive at a decision. No failure of justice is said to have been made by the Tribunal in referring the mater to the RTA and directing for a fresh joint route survey. The serious lapse on the part of the petitioners in not operating the routes granted but litigating over the issue that too over a period of twenty years would not create a right to seek interference of this Court at this stage, more particularly in view of the Area Scheme now declared by the Government of Karnataka vide Notification dated 7.3.2019 whereby the permits which were granted, issued by transport authorities and in operation as on 18.12.2014 are only considered to be saved permits. Hence no grounds found in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Accordingly, the writ petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-.