Back
2004 Supreme(Kar) 635
Karnataka High Court
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT corporation, BANGALORE - Appellant
Versus
POOJA TRAVELS, BHALKI, BIDAR DISTRICT - Respondent
Decided On : 11-17-04
W.P. : 35189 of 2004
A.S.PARASARA KUMAR, ASHOK HARANAHAFLI, B.PALAKSHIAH, B.R.S.GUPTA, B.R.SHAILENDRA, C.V.KUMAR, H.B.NAGARAJA, JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, M.R.V.ACHAR, S.PRAKASH SHETTY, S.SHIVANANJAPPA, S.V.KRISHNASWAMY, Y.Hariprasad
Headnote:Delegation of powers
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 - Sections 68 and 96 - Delegation of powers - Jurisdiction of State to delegate duties of RTA or STA. See, Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - Rules 55 and 56.
Cases Referred:(1997) 3 SCC 191; AIR 2002 SC 629.
Followed:AIR 2004 SC 2413.
Delegation of powers
KARNATAKA MOTOR VEHICLES RULES, 1989 - Rules 55 & 56 -Delegation of powers -Can State delegate to Secretary of Regional Transport Authority or State Transport Authority of power to issue contract carriage permit or stage carriage permit and power to perform duties of RTA/STA? No, hence, resolution passed by RTA for delegation of its powers to its secretary is without authority of law.
[Mohan Shantanagoudar, J]: Secretary of STA/RTA cannot be delegated with power of issuing contract carriage/stage carriage permits and to perform the duties of RTA/STA under Rules 55 & 56 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules. The resolution passed by the Karnataka State Transport Authority, Bangalore in its meeting held on 20-12-1995/ 21-12-1995 vide Sl. No. 19 of Sub. No. 25/95-96 delegating the power to its Secretary to consider the applications for grant "Contract Carriage Permits" is declared as without authority of law and consequently the same is quashed.
Cases Referred: (1997) 3 SCC 191; AIR 2002 SC 629. Followed:AIR 2004 SC 2413.
Powers of State Transport Authority
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 - Sections 80 & 88 -Powers of State Transport Authority -Contract carriage permit or Stage carriage permit -Authority has power to issue.
[Mohan Shantanagoudar, J]: Section-80(2) is amended with effect from 14.11.1994 by Act No. 54 of 1994 and by the said amendment, the words "RTA" which existed earlier are substituted by the words "RTA, STA or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of Section-66 of the "Act". Though "RTA" has jurisdiction to grant the "CCPs", the same will be confined to his region only unless the permit holder obtains the counter signature from other "RTAs" within whose jurisdiction the rest of the route lies. To avoid the cumbersome procedure, the Legislature might have thought it fit to amend Section -80(2) of the "Act" so as to empower the "STA" also to consider the application for grant of permit. The provisions of Section 69, 74, 68(3) (c), 80 (1) (2) and Section 88 (2) of the Act have to be read and appreciated jointly and not in isolation. The harmonious reading of all the aforesaid provisions makes it abundantly clear that both "STA" & "RTA" have jurisdiction to consider and dispose of the applications for grant of any type of permit including the "CCP" and "SCP". In view of the above, I hold that the "STA" also has jurisdiction to consider the applications for grant of permits including the "SCP" and "CCP" under Motor Vehicles Act.
Cases Referred: (1997) 3 SCC 191; AIR 2002 SC 629; Followed:AIR 2004 SC 2413.
( 1 ) THE petitioners in all these writ petitions i. e. , Karnataka State Road transport Corporation ("corporation" for short) and two private operators are seeking writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the secretaries of Regional Transport Authorities ("rta" for short) as well as the Secretary of the Karnataka State Transport Authority ("ksta" for short), granting Contract Carriage Permits ("ccp" for short) and stage Carriage Permits ("scp" for short) in favour of the various private operators. Since the common questions of facts and law are involved in all these writ petitions, they have been clubbed and disposed of by this common order.
( 2 ) THE petitioner in W. P. Nos. 40338 of 2004 to 40342 of 2004, 35189 of 2004, 35190 of 2004, 35374 of 2004, 18663 to 18668 and 18670 to 18672 of 2004 is the "corporation" and is represented by the learned advocates Sri Ashok Harnahalli and Sri S. Prakash Shetty. The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos, 37259 and 37260 of 2004 and W. P. No. 21297 of 2004 are the private operators represented by the learned advocates Sri S. V. Krishnaswamy and Sri A. S. Prasara Kumar.
( 3 ) I have heard learned Counsels Sri Ashok Harnahalli, Sri Prakash shetty, Sri S. V. Krishnaswamy and Sri A. S. Prasara Kumar for petitioners and Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel, Sri b. R. S. Gupta, Sri M. R. V. Achar, Sri C. V. Kumar and Sri B. Palakshaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the material on record.
( 4 ) BASED on the arguments of the learned Counsels for rival parties, the following points emerge for consideration by this Court: (I) Whether the Rules 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Motor vehicles Rules, 1989 are valid in law? (II) Whether the State Transport Authority has jurisdiction to issue the Contract Carriage Permits/stage Carriage permits? (III) Can the Secretary of RTA/sta be delegated with the power to issue the Contract Carriage Permits/stage Carriage permits and to perform the duties of RTA/sta under Rules 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules? and whether the resolution passed by the STA on 20/12/95 and 21/12/95 in Subject No. 25 of 1995-96 is valid? (IV) Whether the Secretary of the State Transport Authority has applied his mind while passing the impugned orders? (V) Whether the schemes framed by State Government under section 100 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prohibit the operation of contract carriages by private operators? (VI) Whether the Contract Carriage Permit holders can operate their contract carriages as if they are the Stage Carriages?
( 5 ) RE: Point Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii ).-Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned counsel submitted that consideration of the applications for grant of either "scp" or "ccp" under Sections 72 and 74 respectively of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "act" for short) has to be by RTA only and not by STA or its Secretary; that the application for grant of permits shall be made under Section 69 (1) of the Act to the "rta"; that the "sta" can perform the duties of "rta" under Section 68 (3) (b) of the "act" only if the circumstances mentioned therein exist; that the exercise of jurisdiction by "sta" under Section 88 (2) of the Act is subject to Section 68 (3) of the Act; that if the "sta" is allowed to perform the functions of "rta", it will be nullifying the effect of Sections 68, 69 and 74 of the Act. On these grounds, Sri Ashok Harnahalli submitted that the "sta" has got no jurisdiction to consider the application for grant of permits. He further submits that the "rta" and "sta" shall consist of Chairman who has judicial experience or experience as Revisional or Appellate Authority or adjudicating authority competent to pass any order or take any decision; that the "rta" and "sta", looking to the scheme of the Act, will perform the quasi-judicial functions while discharging their duties; that as the "sta" perf
