IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.27439 – 27454/2018 (MV) BETWEEN:
1 . SMT. P DHANALAKSHMI S/O M K PONNUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS PROP:N.K.P SERVICE, PALANIKUTTI GARDEN, DOLLIPURA, ATHIGULIPURA POST, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313 2 . SRI N MANI S/O NACHAMUTHU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS PROP:S.S.M MOTORS, SATTI ROAD, KUVEMPU EXTENSION, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313 3 . SRI R MURUGESAN S/O LATE A RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS PROP:A.R.P.BUS SERVICE, GANESH COLONY, ATHIGULIPURA POST, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT 4 . SRI N TIRUPATHI S/O LATE NALLAPPA GOUNDAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS MYSORE MAIN ROAD, SANTHEMARAHALLI, CHAMARAJANAGAR 5 . SMT R PARIMALA W/O N.K.K.P RAJA NO.40, CHIKKAHOLE DAM SRIRAGAPURA, ATHIGULIPURA POST, ARDHANAHALLI HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 127 6 . SRI G V CHANDRASHEKAR S/O SRI G T VENKATSWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.11/12, A V ROAD, KALASIPALYAM, BANGALORE-560 002 7 . SRI K V HARISH S/O KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS HARIKRUPA, MIRJA ROAD, ANEKAL TOWN & ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-582 106 8 . SRI M K PONNUSWAMY S/O KOLANDIAH SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS PROP:N.K.P SERVICE, PALANIKUTTI GARDEN, DOLLIPURA, ATHIGULIPURA POST, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313 ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI S.V.KRISHNASWAMY, ADV.] AND:
1 . THE STATE OF TAMILNADU BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT (TR.III) SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI-09 TAMIL NADU 2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 3 . THE UNION OF INDIA BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT NEW DELHI-110012 4 . M/S TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED (SALEM) DHARMAPURI REGION, SALEM MAIN ROAD, BHARATHIPURAM DHARMAPURI-636 705, TAMIL NADU, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 5 . THE KARANATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560030 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S. HEREMATH, AGA FOR R-2; SRI BASAVARAJ PUJAR S., ADV. FOR R-3;
SRI B.N.JAYADEVA, ADV. FOR R-4;
SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADV. FOR R-5.] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO STRIKE DOWN TAMIL NADU COMPREHENSIVE AREA SCHEME OF 2011, PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY NOTIFICATION DATED 23.02.2011 IN SO AR IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER’S STAGE CARRIAGE PERMITS GRANTED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BANGALORE FOR THE ENCLAVE ROUTE TRAVERSING THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU VIDE ANNEXURE-G.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:-
“i) Strike down Tamil Nadu Comprehensive Area Scheme of 2011, published by the 1st respondent by Notification No.G.O.M.S.No.136 HOME (TRANSPORT-III) dated: 23.02.2011, in so far as it relates to the petitioners’ stage carriage permits granted by the Karnataka State Transport Authority, Bangalore for the enclave route traversing in the State of Tamil Nadu (vide Annexure – G).
ii) Strike down Tamil Nadu Comprehensive Area Scheme of 2011 published under Notification bearing No.G.O.M.S.No.136 HOME (TRANSPORT-III) dated: 23.02.2011 of the 1st respondent in so far as it relates to prohibiting petitioners’ stage carriage permit granted by the Karnataka State Transport Authority, Bangalore having starting point and terminal point in Karnataka from passing through the enclave portion situated in Tamil Nadu State vide Annexure – G or in the alternative.
iii) Declare that Tamil Nadu Comprehensive Area scheme of 2011 published under the Notification bearing No.G.O.MS.No.136 HOME (TRANSPORT-III) dated 23.02.2011 of the 1st respondent vide Annexure – G is null and void and is not applicable in so far as petitioners’ enclave permits granted by the KSTA, Bangalore..”
2. In view of the order of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, Madurai Bench in W.P.(MD) No.2893/2011 and connected matter (D.D. 18.04.2018), whereby the Tamil Nadu Comprehensive Area Scheme dated 23.02.2011 having been set aside, the writ petitions do not survive for consideration.
Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of, as having rendered infructuous.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR