IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.5463 OF 2004 [MV] CONNECTED WITH WRIT APPEAL NO.5462 OF 2004 [MV] IN WRIT APPEAL NO.5463 OF 2004 BETWEEN R. VENKATESHAM CHETTY SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
1. SRI. R.V. BALAJI 2. R.V. SUBHASHCHANDRA BOSE, SONS OF LATE R. VENKATESHAM CHETTY, SRI. VENKATESHWARA MOTOR SERVICE, GANDHINAGAR, KOLAR, DISTRICT KOLAR.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M.E. NAGESH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR (CHIEF LAW OFFICER), CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. DOUBLE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027.
2. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, M.S. BUILDINGS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. PRAKASH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.50461 OF 2003 DATED 13/12/2004.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.5462 OF 2004 BETWEEN :
A.M. MUNIRATHINAM MODALIAR, SON OF A. MODALIANDA MODALIAR AGED 50 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, BHARATHI MOTOR SERVICE, 882-1, GANDHINAGAR, KOLAR.
(BY SRI. B.R.S. GUPTA, ADVOCATE) AND ... APPELLANT 1. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICES, SHANTINAGAR, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027.
BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
2. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, M.S. BUILDINGS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. PRAKASH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.50462 OF 2003 DATED 13/12/2004.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single judge, in Writ Petition No.50461 of 2003 connected with Writ Petition No.50462 of 2003 dated 12.12.2004, in allowing the writ petitions and quashing the impugned resolution, the respondents therein have filed these appeals. The question for consideration therein was, whether the Authority could permit the respondents/operators who have one more additional vehicle in the existing permit to perform one round trip by each vehicle.
2. It is submitted at the Bar that, the very question of law, came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of G.T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY VS. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY & OTHERS, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its order dated 19.07.2016 held at Para 50 onwards as follows:
“Having analysed the above referred to decisions and the statutory provisions, before rendering our final answer to the question referred to this Constitution Bench, it will be worthwhile to make a reference and list out the legal propositions which we are able to discern based on our detailed consideration in this reference:
(a) Chapter IV-A supersedes any inconsistent provisions in Chapter IV.
(b) The policy of the Legislature is clear from Section 68C that the State Transport Undertaking may initiate a scheme for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service to be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking in relation to any area or route or portion thereof. It may do so if it is necessary in the public interest.
(c) Grant of variation under Section 57(8) will be as good as grant of a new permit.
(d) Section 57(8) is controlled by Section 68FF falling under Chapter IV-A, by virtue of the superseding effect of Section 68B also falling under Chapter IVA.
(e) Once a scheme formulated under Section 68D gets approved under 68D(3) of Chapter IVA, then all the permits in the route / area covered by the scheme will get frozen by virtue of operation of Section 68FF.
(f) The effect of Section 68FF can be altered / modified / cancelled only in the manner as provided for under Section 68E and in no other manner.
(g) By virtue of the above, either a grant of a new permit or the variation of an existing permit of private operator cannot be ordered in respect of an area or route covered by an Approved Scheme.
(h) Increase in the number of trips or vehicles which were being run under the existing exempted permit under a Scheme will amount to grant of a new permit to operate one more Stage Carriage which is not permissible under Section 68FF.
(i) The proposition of law, laid down by this Court in ‘JAYARAM’ impliedly stood overruled in ‘ADARSH TRAVELS’.
(j) The economy and coordination, two of the factors, which govern the Approved Scheme, will be seriously infringed if the variation is to be granted of the existing permit condition.
(k) Even if there is an interstate agreement under Section 63 of the Act for increasing the number of trips, such an agreement cannot override the provisions of Chapter IV-A by virtue of Section 68B of the Act. Section 63 being in Chapter IV of the Act, the Scheme approved under Chapter IV-A will prevail over it.
(l) The Approved Scheme will exclude the operation of other stage carriage services on the Route / Area covered by the Scheme, except those whose names are mentioned in the Scheme and to the extent to which such exception is allowed.
(m) The provisions in Chapter IV-A are devised to override the provisions of Chapter IV and it is expressly so enacted, the provisions of Chapter IV- A are clear and complete regarding the manner and effect of the “takeover” of the operation of a road transport service by the State Transport Undertaking in relation to any Area or Route or portion thereof (ADARSH TRAVELS).
(n) A necessary consequence of those provisions is that no private operator can operate his vehicle on any part or portion of a notified area or notified route unless authorized so to do by the term of the scheme itself. He may not operate on any part or portion of the notified Route or Area on the mere ground that the permit as originally granted to him covered the notified Route or Area (ADARSH TRAVELS).
3. In view of the question of law having been answered by the constitution bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, we are of the considered view that the appeals are required to be disposed off in terms of the aforesaid orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
4. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Snc*