IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 12th DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NOS.6313-15 OF 2017 [MV] BETWEEN :
SRI.P.N. NARASIMHAMURTHY, SON OF LATE PALAVALLI ADHISHESHAIAH, AGED 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT SRI.VATHSANKITHA NILAYA, SRI VIJAYALAKSHMI MOTORS PRASHANTHA NAGAR, BEHIND CHANDANAHALLI ROAD, DEVARAYAPATNA NEW EXTN.
TUMKUR-572104. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. LOKESH.R, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, I FLOOR, “A” BLOCK, TTMC COMPLEX, BMTC BUILDINGS, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560027.
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. (BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA) …RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT APPEALS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 27.04.2017 WRIT PETITION NO.20900-902 OF 2016 AND TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITIONS AS PRAYED.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY MOHAMMAD NAWAZ J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Assailing the order dated 27.04.2017 passed by the learned Single judge in W.P. No.20900-20902 of 2016 (MV), the petitioner therein has preferred this appeal to set aside the said order and consequently to allow the writ petitions.
2. It is the case of the appellant that he filed an application for grant of fresh state carriage permit on the route Pavagada TO Tumakuru as per Sl.No.133 of appendix – A of inter-state agreement dated 28.08.1975 entered into between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. The said application was considered by the Karnataka State Transport Authority (for short ‘KSTA’) and permit was granted on the route Pavagada TO Tumakuru head post office circle, which was valid from 21.12.2011 to 20.12.2016 (vide Annexure – B to the writ petition). The Andhra Pradesh region was countersigned by the STA, Andhra Pradesh. The respondent No.2 – KSRTC challenged the grant of permit granted by the Competent Authority by filing R.P. No.1163 of 2012 before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘Appellate Tribunal’). The Appellate Tribunal by its common order dated 01.04.2016, allowed the revision petition by setting aside the permit granted to the appellant and remanded the matter directing the KSTA to consider the application filed by the Corporation afresh, as per law, within ninety days.
3. Challenging the common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, the appellant preferred the writ petitions. The learned single judge by directing the respondent No.1 – KSTA to pass the order in compliance with the order passed by the Tribunal as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, after hearing the respective parties, disposed off the petition.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the KSTA, the competent authority granted permit after considering the joint route survey report conducted in presence of KSRTC and APSRTC for the convenience of the traveling public on the route granted. The APSRTC has not challenged the grant of permit made in favour of the appellant in spite of objection raised before the authority. The KSRTC has not furnished the notifications of the schemes with date before the respondents. The respondent No.2 has not disclosed their operation of service by obtaining the permit as per the New M.V. Act 1988 as per section 103 of the Act. Until and unless the respondent No.2 establish their legal grievance as per law under the New M.V. Act 1988, their objection cannot be considered. The competent authorities have considered the application for permit under New M.V. Act 1988. The 2nd respondent has not contended that their operative service is identical to the appellant’s service except stating that the portion of route is overlapping the scheme route. The view taken by the Tribunal is illegal and improper. Further that the KSRTC and appellant operate the service in public convenience in the route as granted by the authority. When there is no substantial common route between KSRTC and private operators established before the original authority or the Tribunal, the contentions of the KSRTC have to be rejected.
5. The respondent No.2 filed its objection to the writ petitions. It is contended therein that the route in question overlaps Andhra Pradesh as well as the Bangalore scheme. The claim of the appellant that the place he operates is different cannot be a ground for him to claim his permit under Sl.No.133 of the inter-state agreement for the reason, while entering into the agreement, a parity of kilometerage is maintained by both the States. In so far as the Bangalore Scheme is concerned, part –A of the scheme completely excludes private operators including existing operators as on the date of original scheme. Part – B provides to ‘other operators’ which means existing as on such day. It has been clarified that the Bangalore scheme provides the operation of service by the State Transport Corporation only and no exemption has been provided for operation and service by any private operators. Therefore the contention of the appellant that the exemption provided under Part – B of Bangalore scheme does not survive. The appellant cannot claim a different route other than shown in the inter-state agreement i.e., Sl.No.133. The effect of overlapping under approved scheme makes the permit non-est in the eye of law.
6. The appellant herein submitted application for grant of permit on the route Pavagada TO Tumakuru, claiming vacancies available at Sl.No.133 of the inter-state agreement to operate the services for two round trips. The authority granted permit by decision pronounced on 27.08.2012, granting permit valid from 21.12.2011 to 20.12.2016. The application filed by the 2nd respondent was rejected. Against the grant in favour of the appellant and rejection of the application of the 2nd respondent, Revision Petition No.1163 of 2012 and Appeal No.1428 of 2012 were preferred. The appellant has also filed appeal No.1466 of 2012 challenging the order of the authority, to the extent while granting the permit restricting the operation on the route up to G.P.O., Tumakuru instead of Tumakuru Bus Stand. All the cases were clubbed together and a common order was passed by the Appellate Tribunal on 01.04.2016. The R.P. No.1163 of 2012 was allowed setting aside the permit granted to the appellant and consequently, the Appeal No.1428 of 2012 filed by the Corporation against the rejection of the application was allowed in part. In so far as Appeal No.1466 of 2012, the same was rejected. The Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter to the authority to consider the application of the Corporation afresh as per law within ninety days, taking note of the observations made therein.
7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the route Tumakuru TO Pavagada overlaps under Bangalore scheme for a distance of 48 kilometres from Tumakuru TO Madhugiri in Part-B of the 1960 notification. The route from Tumakuru GPO TO Tumakuru Bus stand overlaps 0.7 kilometer under Bangalore scheme at Part-A. Apart from the same, route overlaps Andhra Pradesh’s scheme to an extent of 5.6 kilometers. While entering the agreement, a parity of kilometerage is maintained by both the states. The via places other than mentioned in the inter-state agreement does not formulate the route at sl.No.133 of the inter-state agreement to claim the benefits.
8. The Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the permit granted was unsustainable and in violation of the scheme. Keeping open the violation in respect of Andhra Pradesh’s scheme, held that the impugned order is not sustainable. The Appellant Tribunal remanded the matter to the authority to consider the application of the 2nd respondent afresh as per law within 90 days. The learned single judge having noted that the dispute regarding overlapping of the route in question has to be ascertained only after conducting a fresh joint route survey as observed by the Tribunal, held that, remanding the matter to the authority to reconsider and to pass appropriate order cannot be found fault with.
9. The learned single judge while disposing of the petitions has protected the interest of the appellant, by permitting to operate the services till the orders are passed by the respondent No.1 in terms of the orders passed by the Tribunal in Revision Petition No.1160 of 2012.
10. We find that there is no merit in the writ appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE snc