IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.46451 – 46466/2013 c/w W.P.Nos.39810 – 39837/2013, W.P.Nos.40433 – 40443/2013, W.P.Nos.40444 – 40461/2013, W.P.Nos.41074 – 41130/2013, W.P.Nos.43482 – 43484/2013, W.P.Nos.44972 – 44989/2013 AND W.P.Nos.47161 – 47162 & 47163 – 47167/2013 (MV) IN W.P.Nos.46451 – 46466/2013:
BETWEEN:
1. M.V.VASANTHAMMA D/O M.V.VENKATAPPA AGED 63 YEARS UDAYA RANGA MOTOR SERVICES, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT 2. K.NAGENDRA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGE 36 YEARS SRI UDAYA RANGA MOTOR SERVICES, MALAVALLI MANDYA DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI S.V.KRISHNASWAMY, ADV.] AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, CORPORATION BUILDING, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-01 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT, CORPORTION, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027 4. MANAGING DIRECTOR BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI S.N.PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADV. FOR R-2;
SRI M.S.HARISH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R-3; SRI R.V.JAYAPRAKASH, ADV. FOR R-4.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.08.2012, CORRECTED AS 08.08.2013, ISSUED BY THE R1 & THE CORRIGENDUM DATED 26.08.2013, VIDE ANNEXURES-A & B RESPECTIVELY.
IN W.P.Nos.39810 – 39837/2013: BETWEEN:
1. SRI G.A.SANJAY S/O G.M.ASHWATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, PROP:JAI BHARATH MOTOR SERVICE, GUNJOOR VIA VARTHUR, BANGALORE-560 087 2. SRI G.V.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O G.T.VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, PROP:VINAYAKA MOTOR SERVICE, NO.11/12, A.V. ROAD, KALASIPALYAM, BANGALORE 3. SRI G.V.SATHISH REDDY S/O G.T.VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, PROP:VINAYAKA MOTOR SERVICE, NO.11/12, A.V. ROAD, KALASIPALYAM, BANGALORE 4. SRI G.V.NAGARAJA REDDY S/O G.T.VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, PROP:VINAYAKA MOTOR SERVICE, NO.11/12, A.V. ROAD, KALASIPALYAM, BANGALORE-560 002 5. Mrs. KHAMRUNNISA W/O MOHAMMED HUSSAIN R., AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, NO.12, MOSQUE LANE, KALASIPALYAM, BANGALORE 6. SRI G.V.PALAKSHA S/O G.T.VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS PROP:VINAYAKA MOTOR SERVICE, NO.11/12, A.V. ROAD, KALASIPALYAM, BANGALORE 7. SRI GOPINATH S/O C.KONDAPPA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, PROP: J.P.T. BUS SERVICE, OLD BUS STAND, HOSUR, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU 8. SRI B.VIJAYA SAI S/O T.G.BODA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.141, NETAJINAGAR, MATHIGIRI A.C.F. HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT TAMIL NADU 9. SRI S.C.VENKATESAN S/O S.CHALLAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, SRI VENKATESWARA SERVICE, SIPCOT POST, DHARGA, HOSUR-635126 KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU 10. SMT.C.PAPPU W/O S.CHALLAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, SRI VENKATESWARA SERVICE, SIPCOT POST, DHARGA, HOSUR-635126 KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU 11. SRI S.C.SREENIVASA S/O S.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NO.23, ""SREE GANESHA"
17TH MAIN, BTM III STAGE, N.S. PALYA, BANGALORE-560 076 12. Mr. H.B.ARIFULLA KHAN S/O BARIKULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 37/1, RAJJAB MANSION, 1ST FLOOR, XAVIOUR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 047 13. SMT.PUSHPA REDDY W/O K.R.KODANDARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, NO.249, 3RD MAIN, PANDURANGANAGAR, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 076 14. SRI K.PRASHANTH S/O K.R.KODANDARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, NO.249, 3RD MAIN, PANDURANGANAGAR, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 076 15. Mr. K.NOOR BAIG S/O KHADAR BAIG, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NO.59, 12TH CROSS, BTM I STAGE, BANGALORE 16. SRI R.SUBRAMANIAN S/O RAMASWAMY GOUNDER, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, NO.42/E/15A, SHANTHINAGAR, IV CROSS, HOSUR POST & TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU 17. SRI C.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, NO.403/26, SLV NILAYA, NEAR APS SCHOOL, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, ANEKAL 18. SRI D.T.VIJAYARAGHAVAN S/O D.T.I. IYENGAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO.869, 38TH CROSS, 20TH MAIN JAYANAGAR IV "T" BLOCK, BANGALORE 19. SRI D.T.PARTHASARATHY S/O D.T.I.IYENGAR, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, NO.869, 38TH CROSS, 20TH MAIN JAYANAGAR IV "T" BLOCK, BANGALORE 20. SRI B.V.SOMASHEKAR REDDY S/O SRI VENKATAADRI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SRI VENKATAADRI TRANSPORT, NO.234, 12TH MAIN, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE-560 030 ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI S.V.KRISHNASWAMY, ADV.] AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE-560001 BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE-560027 4. MANAGING DIRECTOR BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE -27. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP ROR R-1 & R-2; SRI S.H.PRASHANTH, ADV. FOR R-2;
SRI R.V.JAYAPRAKASH, ADV. FOR R-3 & R-4.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.08.2012 (CORRECTED AS 08.08.2013) ISSUED BY THE R-1 (ANNEXURE-C) AND TO QUASH THE NOTICES DATED 28.08.2013 ISSUED BY THE R-4 (ANNEXURES-E, F & G).
IN W.P.Nos.40433 – 40443/2013: BETWEEN:
1. Mr. LIYAKATH ALI KHAN S/O S.K.MOHAMOOD KHAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.26, 11TH CROSS SOMESHWARANAGAR OPP. 10TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN BANGALORE 2. K.MUBARAK BASHA S/O KHADER KHAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS NO.26, 11TH CROSS SOMESHWARANAGAR WILSON GARDEN BANGALORE 3. MOHAMMED UMER S/O BASHA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS NO.26, 11TH CROSS, SOMESHWARANAGARA JAYANAGAR I BLOCK, BANGALORE-560011 4. M.GANESHAN S/O MUTHUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS PATEL BUILDING OPP. JAMIYA MASJID KODIGE THIRUMALAPURA, HESARGATTA BANGALORE 5. D.MANOHAR S/O M.P.DURAISWAMY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS NO.18/3, 16TH STREET J.B. NAGARA, MARIYAMMAN KOIL STREET, BANGALORE-560033 6. SRI RANGAVILAS MOTOR TRANSPORT NO.439, GANDHI ROAD KRISHNAGIRI-635001 TAMIL NADU FIRM REP BY ITS PARTNER SRI L.CHANDRA BABU 7. K.V.HARISH S/O KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS MIRZA ROAD, ANEKAL BANGALORE DISTRICT 8. S.MANUKUMAR S/O M.SAMPANGIRAMU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS NO.258, 24TH A CROSS JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 9. S.KUMARVEL S/O SENGOTTIVELAPPAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS SRI DEVI BUS SERVICE NO.1/1, DISPENSARY ROAD KALASIPALAYAM, BANGALORE 10. K.C.SAMPANGI RAMAIAH S/O CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO.4, 1ST FLOR, RAGHAVENDRA ENTERPRISES, JAYANAGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX BANGALORE 11. R.SUMATHI W/O N.RAJESH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS CHIKKABAJANE MANDIRA STREET SARJAPURA P.O., ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI C.V.KUMAR, ADV.] AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE-560002 BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K H ROAD BANGALORE-560027 4. MANAGING DIRECTOR BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE-560027 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADV. FOR R-2;
SRI R.V.JAYAPRAKASH, ADV. FOR R-3 & R-4.] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.08.2012 [CORRECTED AS 08.08.2013] ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
IN W.P.Nos.40444 – 40461/2013: BETWEEN:
1. M/s SIRDI SAI ENTERPRISES BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI SUNKU RADHESH KUMAR S/O SUNKU LAKSHMINARAYANA GUPTHA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.11-1-68, 4TH CROSS ARVINDNAGAR, ANANTHAPUR, A.P.
2. SRI K.JAGADEESH REDDY S/O T.N.RAMALINGA REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS MADANAPALLI MOTORS NIMMANAPPALLI ROAD MADANAPALLI, CHITTOOR, A.P.
3. SRI N.P.RAGHURAM S/O N.P.CHENGALARAYA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS NAIDU BUILDING, CHITTOOR, A.P.
4. SRI R.V.SUBASCHANDRA BOSE S/O R.VENKATESHAM CHETTY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS SRI VENKATESHWARA MOTOR SERVICE GANDHINAGAR, KOLAR 5. SRI R.V.BALAJI S/O R.VENKATESHAM CHETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS SRI VENKATESHWARA MOTOR SERVICE GANDHINAGAR, KOLAR 6. SRI P.N.NAGENDRA S/O P.NARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO.12, D-STREET, KALASIPALYAM BANGALORE 7. SRI H.N.HANUME GOWDA S/O SRI H.C.NARAYANAPPA AGED 53 YEARS SRI LAKSHMI SARASWATHI MOTOR SERVICE, NO.18, 8TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, BTM II STAGE, BANGALORE-560076 8. SRI Y.C.SHANKARANARAYANA REDDY S/O CHANNA REDDY AGED 59 YEARS, NO.39, R.C.R. LAYOUT YEDARANAHALLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI C.V.KUMAR, ADV.] AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE-560002 BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K H ROAD BANGALORE-560027 4. MANAGING DIRECTOR BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE-560027 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADV. FOR R-2;
SRI R.V.JAYAPRAKASH, ADV. FOR R-3 & R-4.] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.08.2012 [CORRECTED AS 08.08.2013] ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
IN W.P.Nos.41074 – 41130/2013: BETWEEN:
1. C.ANANTHA SHANKAR S/O LATE S.CHOODAPPA AGED 51 YEARS MANAGING PARTNER S.K.M.S. ANEKAL 2. DAYANANDA SAGAR S/O LATE G.A.RAMAIAH REDDY AGE 55 YEARS R/AT No.5/1, 1ST MAIN, GOPALAPPA LAYOUT 16TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA BANGALORE 3. SMT.K.G.NIRMALA W/O LATE K.G.DAYANANDA AGE 51 YEARS PROP: S.N.MOTOR SERVICE LION BHAVAN ROAD, DODDABALLAPUR BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BY G.P. HOLDER D.PRASANTH KUMAR.
4. D.L.DASASHIVA REDDY S/O LAKSHMANA REDDY AGED 62 YEARS R/AT SUVARANAMUKHI EXPRESS JAYANAGAR (WEST) BANGALORE-560 082 5. MOHAMMED TIPU QURESHI AND KHALAKH QURESHI SHAHEEN MOTOR SERVICE OLD POST OFFICE ROAD, KOLAR 6. B.G.RAJAN S/O LATE D.V.JAYARAM AGE MAJOR BANGALORE TRANSPORT ASHWATHA KATTE ROAD V.V.PURAM, BANGALORE 7. N.MUDDAPPA S/O LATE M.NARASIMHA AGED 76 YEARS SLN MOTOR SERVICE No.1649, NAGAPPA BLOCK BANGALORE-560 201 8. K.S.RAVIKUMAR S/O SEETHAPPA AGED 45 YEARS No.182-A, ANNAYAPPA BLOCK SHESHADRIPURAM MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 020 9. SMT.R.MAHESHWARI W/O LATE RAJENDRAN AGE 72 YEARS PROP: CTRS & CO., PRAKASHAM IN ROAD CHITTOOR, A.P.
10. A.P.GOPI KRISHNA S/O LATE A.M.P.MUDALIAR AGED 45 YEARS PROP: BHARATHI MOTOR SERVICE No.47, MOHAN MANSIONS KASTURBA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 ALSO AT OFFICE T.P. AREA TIRUPATHI (A.P) 11. SHAKUNTHALA J. REDDY W/O LATE T.N.JAYANARAYANA REDDY J.N.R. TRANSPORTS AVENUE ROAD, MADANAPALLY, A.P., BY G.P.A HOLDER SADASHIVA REDDY.
12. B.G.VENKATESH S/O M.P.GANGAPPA AGED 62 YEARS VENKATESHWARA MOTOR SERVICE 9-AGED ABOUT YEARS RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 13. B.V.VIKRAM S/O B.G.VENKATESH AGED 36 YEARS VENKATESHWARA MOTOR SERVICE 9-A, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 14. B.V.ASHOK S/O B.G.VENKATESH AGED 33 YEARS VENKATESHWARA MOTOR SERVICE 9-A, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 15. M.VENKATESH S/O B.G.GANGAPPA AGED 62 YEARS VENKATESHWARA MOTOR SERVICE 9-A, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 16. B.G.MURALIDHAR S/O M.P.GANGAPPA AGED 50 YEARS VENKATESHWARA MOTOR SERVICES 9-A, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 17. D.S.VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O D.L.SADASHIVA REDDY AGED 58 YEARS No.607, 10TH CROSS, 7TH BLOCK (WEST) JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560082 18. SMT.R.GAJALAKSHMI W/O LATE C.RAJA NAIDU MAJOR, No.25, 7TH MAIN ROAD, 8TH CROSS, N.R.LAYOUT, GARVEPALYA, BANGALORE-560 058 ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI S.V.KRISHNASWAMY, ADV.] AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE-560002 BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K H ROAD BANGALORE-560027 4. MANAGING DIRECTOR BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE-560027 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI H.S.PRASHANTHA, ADV. FOR R-2;
SRI R.V.JAYAPRAKASH, ADV. FOR R-3 & R-4.] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.08.2012 (CORRECTED AS 08.08.2013) ISSUED BY THE R-1 (ANNEXURE-C).
IN W.P.Nos.43482 – 43484/2013:
BETWEEN:
SRI K.R.SOMASHEKAR REDDY S/O RAJAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O LAVAKUSHA NAGAR, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, ANEKAL, BANGALORE ... PETITIONER [BY SRI C.V.KUMAR, ADV.] AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE-560002 BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K H ROAD BANGALORE-560027 4. MANAGING DIRECTOR BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE-560027 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADV. FOR R-2;
SRI R.V.JAYAPRAKASH, ADV. FOR R-3 & R-4.] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.07.2012 [CORRECTED AS 08.08.2013] ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
IN W.P.Nos.44972 – 44989/2013:
BETWEEN:
SMT.N.ROOPASHREE W/O SRI P.SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS PROPRIETRIX JATIN TOURS & TRAVELS #369/C, 5TH CROSS LAXMI ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE – 560027 ... PETITIONER [BY SRI B.R.SHAILENDRA, ADV.] AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE CORPORATION BUILDING, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-1, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNTAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027 4. MANAGING DIRECTOR BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR BANGALORE-560027 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADV. FOR R-2; SRI M.S.HARISH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R-3; SRI R.V.JAYAPRAKASH, ADV. FOR R-4.] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.08.2012 (CORRECTED AS 08.08.2013) ISSUED BY THE R-1 AND THE CORRIGENDUM DATED 26.08.2013 VIDE ANNEXURES-A & B RESPECTIVELY.
IN W.P.Nos.47161 – 47162 & 47163 – 47167/2013: BETWEEN:
1. SRI M.V.SUBRAMANYA S/O LATE M.V.VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS PROPRIETOR UDAYARANGA MOTOR SERVICE PETE MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT 2. SMT.USHA SUBRAMANYA W/O SRI M.V.SUBRAMANYA AGED ABOUT 52 EYARS No.463/H, 12TH MAIN RAJAMAHAL VILAS EXTENSION BANGALORE-560 080 3. SRI S.ABHISHEK S/O SRI M.V.SUBRAMANYA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS PROPRIETOR UDAYARANGA MOTOR SERVICE BAZAAR STREET, MALAVALLI 4. SRI M.PRAKASHA RAO S/O LATE N.MUNI RAO AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS PROPRIETOR SLN MOTOR SERVICE No.58, CUBBONPET MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 002 5. SRI N.SREENIVASA NAIDU S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY NAIDU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ANNAPOORNESHWARI NILAYA CHINTHAMANI CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 6. SMT.R.MEGHANA W/O SRI J.V.SHIVA GANESH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS BALAJI TRANSPORTS No.193, MYSORE ROAD N.T.PETE, BANGALORE-560 002 7. SRI V.GOPI S/O SRI J.VENKATACHALAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS BALAJI TRANSPORTS BAMBOO BAZAAR AND:
CHINTHAMANI CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI B.R.SUNDARARAJA GUPTA, ADV.] 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT MULTISTOREYED BUILDINGZS, Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560 001 2. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE-560002 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD BANGALORE 560 027 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD BANGALORE 560027 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI S.N.PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADV. FOR R-2;
SRI M.S.HARISH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R-3; SRI R.V.JAYAPRAKASH, ADV. FOR R-4.] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE R1, DATED 08.08.2012, CORRECTED AS 08.08.2013, MARKED UNDER ANNEXURE-C BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R These petitions involving similar and akin issues, have been considered together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners have challenged the Government Order dated 08.08.2012 (corrected as 08.08.2013) and the Corrigendum dated 26.08.2013 at Annexures – A and B respectively inasmuch as the levy and demand of bus stand fee from the petitioners in respect of the buses of the petitioners at Kalasipalyam bus stand at Bengaluru is concerned.
3. The petitioners are claiming to be the stage carriage operators on various routes. The bus stand at Kalasipalyam, Bengaluru known as Kalasipalyam bus stand is a specified bus stand for private buses at Bengaluru. It is submitted that almost all stage carriage buses of private operators are required to use Kalasipalyam bus stand to start and terminate the journey at Bengaluru. It is the contention of the petitioners that place/space to an extent of about 5 acres in Kalasipalyam was set apart as bus stand for stage carriage buses for the benefit of traveling public having regard to its location and the said bus stand has been in use for more than six to seven decades. It is contended that the respondent – Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) was collecting the bus stand fee at the rate of Rs.5/- per bus per day for the use of Kalasipalyam bus stand from the operators but by virtue of the impugned Notification issued by the Government of Karnataka, the petitioners are required to pay the bus stand fees at Rs.500/- per day per bus or at Rs.8,000/- per month. The State of Karnataka has enabled the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) to collect the bus stand fees.
4. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.1 – State of Karnataka in determining the bus stand fees and delegating the power of collection of such bus stand fees by the BMTC, these writ petitions are filed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that Section 348 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (‘Act’ for short) contemplates that the Commissioner may construct or provide public halting places, cart-stands, cattle sheds and cow- houses and may charge and levy such fees for the use of the same as the standing committee may fix. In terms of the explanation appended to the said provision, a cart-stand shall, for the purposes of the Act, include a stand for carriages including motor vehicles within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. As per sub- section (2) of Section 348, the standing committee of the BBMP is the competent authority to fix the fees for the use of such place and the statement of such fees fixed by the Standing Committee shall be put up in Kannada and English in a conspicuous part thereof. Hence, fixing and levying of fees by the Government/BMTC is without authority and jurisdiction. It was argued that Article 243W of the Constitution read with Twelfth Schedule contemplates, the public amenities including street lighting, parking lots, bus stops and public conveniences shall be maintained by the Municipal Corporation. The sovereign/constitutional function of the Municipal Corporation cannot be delegated to BMTC for determining and collecting the bus stand fees. It was submitted that the amount of Rs.500/- per bus per day or Rs.8,000/- per month is exorbitant and there is no nexus for the fee fixed and the services provided. Quantum of fee levied is highly arbitrary and has no legal basis. The BBMP or the Government cannot abdicate their duties and they cannot permit the KSRTC/BMTC who are also operators of the buses to maintain or manage the bus stand.
6. The learned counsel for the BMTC submitted that after holding several meetings between the Commissioner of BBMP and the Managing Director of BMTC with regard to the transfer of Kalasipalyam bus stand to BMTC and on the recommendations made by both the parties, the Government by its order dated 20.11.2012 granted approval for transfer of an extent of 174 acres of land belonging to BMTC to BBMP at 50% of the guidance value of the land and further granted approval for transfer of 4 acres 13 guntas of land belonging to BBMP at Kalasipalyam to BMTC at 50% of the guidance value. The actual possession of the Kalasipalyam bus stand was handed over to BMTC by BBMP on 19.10.2011 itself with a view to develop the said land as a bus stand. The proposal for handing over the same to BMTC was made with a view to enable the BMTC to establish a new bus stand with all modern facilities. After the bus stand was handed over to the possession of BMTC, BMTC has spent about Rs.45 lakhs for the purpose of cleaning and to develop the same. In order to maintain the bus stand in a clean and hygienic condition, BMTC has to spent lot of money. It is in this regard, BMTC has sent a proposal to the Government to permit it to collect a sum of Rs.500/- per bus per day or a sum of Rs.8,000/- per bus per month as entry fees from private operators. The Government by the impugned order dated 08.08.2012 has permitted BMTC to collect the said sum including the service charges.
7. It was argued that under Section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, the State Government has got power to issue directions and general instructions. Pursuant to the Government Order dated 08.08.2012, BMTC has issued notice to all the private bus operators demanding for payment of bus stand fees as fixed. It was submitted that the work of the bus stand with all modern facilities is under progress and therefore determination and demand of bus stand fees is justifiable.
8. The learned counsel appearing for BMTC submitted that the land in question being transferred to BMTC for the development of bus stand, BMTC is the competent authority to fix and collect the bus stand fees. It was argued that Section 348 of the Act, 1976 is not applicable in view of the transfer of the land to BMTC by BBMP.
9. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State of Karnataka justifying the impugned order submitted that on the request of the BBMP as well as BMTC, the sanction has been accorded for determination of quantum of fees by BMTC and to transfer the bus stand area by the BBMP to BMTC in terms of clause (6)[b][iii] of Section 176 of the Act, 1976. The State Government is empowered to fix the bus stand fees on the request of the BMTC in order to maintain the bus stand.
10. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material on record.
11. The fulcrum of dispute revolves around the competency of the State Government to determine/fix the bus stand fees in terms of the order dated 08.08.2012 impugned herein.
12. Section 348 of the Act, 1976 is quoted hereunder for ready reference:-
348. Provision of halting places, cart-stands, etc.- (1) The Commissioner may construct or provide public halting places, cart-stands, cattle-sheds and cow-houses and may charge and levy such fees for the use of the same as the standing committee may fix.
Explanation.- A cart-stand shall, for the purposes of this Act, include a stand for carriages including motor vehicles within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act IV of 1939) and animals.
(2) A statement of the fees fixed by the standing committee for the use of each such place, shall be put up in Kannada and English in a conspicuous part thereof.
(3) The Commissioner may farm out the collection of such fees for any period not exceeding 1[five years] at a time on such terms and conditions as he may think fit.
13. Section 350 of the Act, 1976 reads thus:
“350. Recovery of cart-stand fees, etc.:- (1) If the fee leviable under sub-section (1) of section 348 is not paid on demand, the person appointed to collect such fee may seize and detain such portion of the appurtenances or load of such cart, carriage, motor vehicle or animal as will, in his opinion, suffice to defray the amount due; in the absence of any such appurtenances or load or in the event of their value being insufficient to defray the amount due, he may seize and detain the cart, carriage, motor vehicle or animal.
(2) All property seized under sub-section (1) shall be sent within twenty four hours to the Commissioner or to such person as he may have authorised to receive and sell such property and the Commissioner shall forthwith give notice to the owner of the property seized or if the owner is not known or is not resident within the city, to the person who was in charge of such property at the time when it was seized or if such person is not found, give public notice that after the expiry of two days, exclusive of Sunday, from the date of service or publication of such notice, the property will be sold in public auction at a place to be specified in the notice.
(3) If at any time before the sale has begun, the amount due on account of the fee, together with the expenses incurred in connection with the seizure, detention and proposed sale is tendered to the Commissioner or 530 Municipal Corporations 1977: KAR. ACT 14] other person authorised as aforesaid, the property seized shall be forthwith released.
(4) If no such tender is made, the property or a sufficient portion thereof may be sold and the proceeds of the sale applied to the payment of,-
(i) the amount due on account of the fees;
(ii) such penalty not exceeding the mount of the fee as the Commissioner may direct;
(iii) the expenses incurred in connection with the seizure, detention and sale.
(5) If, after making the payments referred to in sub-section (4) there is any surplus sale proceeds or any property remaining unsold, the same shall be paid or delivered to the owner or other person entitled thereto.”
14. Section 351 of the Act, 1976 contemplates for granting licence for private cart-stand. In terms of the said provisions, no person shall open a new private cart-stand or continue to keep open a private cart-stand unless he obtains from the Commissioner a licence to do so.
15. Section 72 [2] [xx] of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads thus:
“[xx] that any specified bus station or shelter maintained by Government or a local authority shall be used and that any specified rent or fee shall be paid for such use;”
16. A bare reading of these provisions makes it clear that for the use of a stand for carriages including motor vehicles within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, the fee shall be fixed by the standing committee of the BBMP and a statement of the fees fixed by the standing committee for the use of each such place, shall be put up in Kannada or English in a conspicuous part thereof. The power to levy fee for the use of bus stand area is vested with the standing committee of the BBMP.
17. The Government order impugned at Annexure-A depicts that on the proposal of the Managing Director, BMTC, the collection of entry fees from the operators of private buses with stage carriage permits obtained from the regional transport offices is fixed for use of Kalasipalyam bus stand at Rs.500/- per bus per day or Rs.8000/- on monthly pass [inclusive of service tax]. The source of power to issue such Government order cannot be traced to Section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 ['Act, 1950' for short] as contended by the BMTC for the reason that Section 34 of the Act 1950 contemplates that the State Government may, after consultation with a Corporation established by such Government, give to the Corporation general instructions to be followed by the Corporation, and such instructions may include directions relating to the recruitment, conditions of service and training of its employees, wages to be paid to the employees, reserves to be maintained by it and disposal of its profits or stocks. The collection of bus stand charges/entry charges for the utilization of the bus stand would come under the domain of the Act 1976 more particularly, the determination of the bus stand fee. The collection of bus stand fee at Rs.5/- per day by the BBMP has been increased to Rs.500/- per day per bus determining the quantum of fees merely based on the proposal of the BMTC. It is ex-facie apparent that the Government of Karnataka has neither applied its mind nor provided an opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders. The competency of the Standing Committee of the BBMP to fix the bus stand charges cannot be shifted to be BMTC, an operator of services merely on the ground that the place of bus stand is transferred by the BBMP to BMTC.
18. Article 243W categorically envisages the powers, authority and responsibilities of Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Corporations are empowered to function as institutions of self- Government and are vested with such powers and authority subject to such conditions specified by the Legislature of a State, with respect to performance of functions and the implementation of schemes as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Twelfth Schedule. Further, the Committees with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to carry out the responsibility conferred upon them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Twelfth Schedule are empowered to exercise the powers envisaged under Article 243W of the Constitution of India. Serial No.17 of the Twelfth Schedule to the Constitution of India deals with the Public amenities including street lighting, parking lots, bus stops and public conveniences. Section 348 of the Act 1976 is traceable to such powers, authority and responsibilities contemplated under Article 243W of the Constitution of India. If that being the position, the order impugned at Annexures-A and B cannot be approved for lack of competence and jurisdiction.
19. The State or the BMTC did not explain as to, on what basis the collection of bus stand fee has been increased to Rs.500/- per day per bus from Rs.5/- per day per bus. What had merely been stated is that for operation of 400 private buses, facility of separate platform is provided in the present bus stand. The Kalasipalyam bus stand is in possession of the Corporation. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to collect the entry fees from the owners of private buses to meet the expenses borne by the Corporation as it is maintaining the cleanliness of the bus stand but such fees being nothing than the bus stand fees has to be determined by the standing committee of the BBMP. It is well settled law that if it is a fee, the principles of quid-pro-quo shall apply. It is mandatory for the State/BMTC to spell out as to on what basis the fee is fixed. It is beneficial to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishna Das V/s. Town Area Committee, Chirgaon1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:
"22. A fee is paid for performing a function. A fee is not ordinarily considered to be a tax. If the fee is merely to compensate an authority for services performed or as compensation for the services rendered, it can hardly be called a tax. However, if the object of the fee is to provide general revenue of the authority rather than to compensate it, and the amount of the fee has no relation to the value of the services, the fee will amount to a tax. In the words of Cooley, "A charge fixed by statute for the service to be performed by 1 [1990] 3 SCC 645 an officer, where the charge has no relation to the value of the services performed and where the amount collected eventually finds its way into the treasury of the branch of the government whose officer or officers collect the charge is not a fee but a tax."
23. Under the Indian Constitution the State Government's power to levy a tax is not identical with that of its power to levy a fee. While the powers to levy taxes is conferred on the State legislatures by the various entries in List II, in it there is Entry 66 relating to fees, empowering the State Government to levy fees "in respect of any of the matters in this list, but not including fees taken in any court". The result is that each State legislature has the power, to levy fees, which is co-extensive with its powers to legislate with respect to substantive matters and it may levy a fee with reference to the services that would be rendered by the State under such law. The State may also delegate such a power to a local authority. When a levy or an imposition is questioned, the court has to inquire into its real nature inasmuch as though an imposition is labelled as a fee, in reality it may not be a fee but a tax, and vice versa. The question to be determined is whether the power to levy the tax or fee is conferred on that authority and if it falls beyond, to declare it ultra vires.
24. We have seen that a fee is a payment levied by an authority in respect of services performed by it for the benefit of the payer, while a tax is payable for the common benefits conferred by the authority on all tax payers. A fee is a payment made for some special benefit enjoyed by the payer and the payment is proportional to such benefit. Money raised by fee is appropriated for the performance of the service and does not merge in the general revenue. Where, however, the service is indistinguishable from the public services and forms part of the latter it is necessary to inquire what is the primary object of the levy and the essential purpose which it is intended to achieve. While there is no quid pro quo between a tax payer and the authority in case of a tax, there is a necessary co-relation between fee collected and the service intended to be rendered. Of course the quid pro quo need not be understood in mathematical equivalence but only in a fair correspondence between the two. A broad co- relationship is all that is necessary."
20. In Jindal Stainless Ltd., [2] v/s. State of Haryana2, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:
"40. Tax is levied as a part of common burden. The basis of a tax is the ability or the capacity of the taxpayer to pay. The principle behind the levy of a tax is the principle of ability or capacity. In the case of a tax, there is no identification of a specific benefit and even if such identification is there, it is not capable of direct measurement. In the case of a tax, a particular advantage, if it exists at all, is incidental to the State's action. It is 2 [2006] 7 SCC 241 assessed on certain elements of business, such as, manufacture, purchase, sale, consumption, use, capital, etc. but its payment is not a condition precedent. It is not a term or condition of a licence. A fee is generally a term of a licence. A tax is a payment where the special benefit, if any, is converted into common burden.
41. On the other hand, a fee is based on the "principle of equivalence". This principle is the converse of the "principle of ability" to pay. In the case of a fee or compensatory tax, the "principle of equivalence" applies. The basis of a fee or a compensatory tax is the same. The main basis of a fee or a compensatory tax is the quantifiable and measurable benefit. In the case of a tax, even if there is any benefit, the same is incidental to the government action and even if such benefit results from the government action, the same is not measurable. Under the principle of equivalence, as applicable to a fee or a compensatory tax, there is an indication of a quantifiable data, namely, a benefit which is measurable."
21. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.Chandru V/s. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and Another3, the State has not produced any material whatsoever before this Court for 3 [2009] 4 SCC 72 determination of the fees fixed by it in terms of the impugned Notification.
22. It is also not forthcoming whether the fees levied is regulatory in nature or not. The co-relationship between the services rendered and the fee levied is essentially a question of fact and it should be established at least in a general way though not by mathematical exactitude.
23. Rule 102 of the KMV Rules, 1989 deals with halting places and stands. Sub-rule 2[i] of Rule 102 of KMV Rules contemplates that the fees to be paid by the owners of public service vehicles using the place and providing for the receipt and disposal of such fees, by the RTA while giving directions.
24. The KSRTC/BMTC is a Statutory Corporation established under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 for the precise and particular purpose of providing adequate, efficient and economical services. Having regard to [a] the advantages offered to the public, trade and industry by the development of road transport; [b] the desirability of co-ordinating any form of road transport with any other form of transport;
[c] the desirability of extending and improving the facilities for road transport in any area and of providing an efficient and economical system of road transport service therein.
25. Though such Corporation, a Road Transport Corporation established under Section 3 of the Act, 1950, is an authority for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution, entrusting the power of determination of bus stand fee cannot be countenanced. The statutory function of BBMP has to be discharged even if the Kalasipalyam bus stand area is handed over to the possession of BMTC. Such bus stand fees has to be fixed by the Standing Committee of the Corporation, keeping in mind all the relevant factors including the Kalasipalyam bus stand area being in possession of the BMTC.
26. As aforesaid, it is a well settled law that fee is not a tax imposed by the competent authorities. Rule of quid-pro-quo plays a pivotal role in fixing the fees. To determine the question of fees, the fee fixed should be proportionate to the benefits/services extended. In the absence of any such discussions and reasons, the quantum of fees fixed at Rs.500/- per bus per day or Rs.8000/- on monthly pass appears to be without any basis and is un-sustainable.
27. It is apt to refer to paras 7 and 8 of the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority V/s. Sharadkumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla and others,4 wherein, their lordships have observed thus:
7. After giving our anxious consideration to the contentions raised by Mr.
4 [1992] 3 SCC 285 Goswami, it appears to us that in a fiscal matter it will not be proper to hold that even in the absence of express provision, a delegated authority can impose tax or fee. In our view, such power of imposition of tax and/or fee by delegated authority must be very specific and there is no scope of implied authority for imposition of such tax or fee. It appears to us that the delegated authority must act strictly within the parameters of the authority delegated to it under Act and it will not be proper to bring the theory of implied intent or the concept of incidental and ancillary power in the matter of exercise of fiscal power. The facts and circumstances in the case of District Council of Jowai are entirely different. The exercise of powers by the Autonomous Jaintia Hills Districts are controlled by the constitutional provisions and in the special facts of the case, this Court has indicated that the realisation of just fee for the a specific purpose by the autonomous District was justified and such power was implied. The said decision cannot be made applicable in the facts of this case or the same should not be held to have laid down any legal proposition that in matters of imposition of tax or fees, the question of necessary intendment may be looked into when there is no express provision for imposition of fee or tax. The other decision in Khargram Panchayat Samiti's case also deal with the exercise of incidental and consequential power in the field of administrative law and the same does not deal with the power of imposing tax and fee.
8. The High Court has referred to the decisions of this Court in Hingir's case, and Jagannath Ramanuj's case and Delhi Municipal Corporation's case (supra). It has been consistently held by this Court that whenever there is compulsory exaction of any money, there should be specific provision for the same and there is no room for intendment. Nothing is to be read and nothing is to be implied and one should look fairly to the language used. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of Mr. Goswami. ….”
28. For the reasons aforesaid, the Standing Committee of BBMP being the competent authority to fix the bus stand fees in terms of Section 348 of the Act, 1976, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside Annexures-A and B and direct the Standing Committee of the BBMP to determine the bus stand fees in accordance with law.
29. For the aforegoing reasons, the Government Order dated 8.8.2012, Annexure-A as well as Corrigendum dated 26.8.2013, Annexure-B are quashed. The proceedings are remitted to the file of respondent No.2 to determine the Bus Stand fees from the petitioners in respect of the buses of the petitioners at Kalasipalyam Bus Stand, Bengaluru, in terms of Section 348(2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 r/w Article 243(w) under Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution of India. The Standing Committee of the BBMP-respondent No.2 shall determine and fix the Bus Stand fees of Kalasipalyam Bus stand in so far as the private operators are concerned after providing an opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders including the petitioners as well as the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be adjudicated before the Standing Committee of the respondent No.2-BBMP. A decision shall be taken by the Standing Committee of the respondent No.2-BBMP in accordance with law in an expedite manner. There is no impediment for the BMTC to collect the said fees pursuant to the determination of bus stand fee by the respondent No.2 – BBMP.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR/NC