Back
2004 Supreme(Kar) 692
Karnataka High Court
Judges : V.Gopala Gowda
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant
Versus
KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - Respondent
Writ Petn 8513 Of 2004
Decided On : 12/16/2004
Advocates Appeared :
ASHOK HARANAHALLI, B.PHALAKSHAIAH, B.R.Shailendra, B.R.SUNDARAJA GUPTA, B.T.PARTHASARATHY, H.B.NAGRAJ, K.GOVINDARAJAN, M.C.NARASIMHAN, N.RAJA SHEKAR, NARAYANASWAMY, S.PRAKASH SHETTY, SHIVANANJAPPA
Headnote:
The Karnataka High Court quashed the contract carriage permits granted to private operators, holding that the Secretary of the Karnataka State Transport Authority (KSTA) lacked the jurisdiction to grant such permits and that the grant of permits was contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) and the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (KMV Rules). The Court also struck down Section 3 of the Karnataka Act No. 9/2003, which repealed the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1970 (KCCA Act), as unconstitutional for violating Articles 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution of India and the decisions of the Supreme Court.
Fact of the Case:
The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and other corporations challenged the grant of contract carriage permits to private operators, arguing that the Secretary of the KSTA lacked the jurisdiction to grant such permits and that the grant of permits was contrary to the provisions of the MV Act and the KMV Rules. The KSRTC Staff and Workers Federation also filed a petition challenging the repeal of the KCCA Act, arguing that it was unconstitutional and that it adversely affected the vested fundamental and statutory rights of the employees of the corporations.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Secretary of the KSTA lacked the jurisdiction to grant contract carriage permits and that the grant of permits was contrary to the provisions of the MV Act and the KMV Rules. The Court also found that the repeal of the KCCA Act was unconstitutional for violating Articles 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution of India and the decisions of the Supreme Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the Secretary of the KSTA had the jurisdiction to grant contract carriage permits? 2. Whether the grant of permits was contrary to the provisions of the MV Act and the KMV Rules? 3. Whether the repeal of the KCCA Act was unconstitutional?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Secretary of the KSTA lacked the jurisdiction to grant contract carriage permits because the MV Act and the KMV Rules provide that such permits can only be granted by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) or the State Transport Authority (STA). The Court found that the Secretary of the KSTA was not a member of either the RTA or the STA and therefore lacked the authority to grant permits. 2. The Court held that the grant of permits was contrary to the provisions of the MV Act and the KMV Rules because the permits were granted without following the proper procedure and without considering the relevant factors. The Court found that the Secretary of the KSTA had not conducted any public hearings or invited objections from the public before granting the permits. 3. The Court held that the repeal of the KCCA Act was unconstitutional because it violated Articles 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution of India and the decisions of the Supreme Court. The Court found that the KCCA Act was enacted to protect the interests of the public and to prevent the misuse of contract carriage permits. The Court found that the repeal of the KCCA Act would lead to the proliferation of contract carriage permits and would adversely affect the public interest.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the contract carriage permits granted to private operators and struck down Section 3 of the Karnataka Act No. 9/2003, which repealed the KCCA Act.
( 1 )
(i) In these batch of writ petitions, the prayer in W. P. Nos. 3312021 and 33237-29, 48429-38, 46814, 46815, 46816, 46817, 49936, 49937 and 51804/2003 filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport corporation (KSRTC)/north West Karnataka Road Transport corporation (hereinafter called as 'nwkrtc' in short) is to quash the contract Carriage Permits granted to private operators, some of them are also contesting respondents in these petitions. The contentions urged in these petitions, objections filed by both State and permit holder respondents and other allied matters pertaining to these writ petitions are dealt with in paragraph 4 of this order.
(ii) In W. P. Nos. 30657-60 and 52160-61/2003 filed by private operators/permit holders of the vehicles, the prayer is to direct the state respondents not to enforce the terms, conditions and instructions issued in the Circular No. STA. 6/pr-02/2003-04, dated 54-2003 issued by the Chairman, Karnataka State Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as KSTA ). According to the petitioners, the terms and conditions imposed in the permits based on the Circular instructions are without authority of law and, therefore, the same cannot be enforced against them.
(iii) In W. P. Nos. 44359 and 46514-15/ 2003 filed by the Association of Owners and Drivers of Tourist Vehicles of Dakshina Kannada, the prayers are quite apposite to the prayers made in the writ petitions mentioned in para (ii) above. The prayers in these petitions are to direct the State respondents to ensure that the permit holders of the contract carriage vehicles adhere to the provisions of Sections 74 and 84 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'mv Act')and to take necessary action against them strictly so that the vehicles adhere to the conditions of the permits. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the contract carriage operators are operating their vehicles in flagrant violation of the law, terms and the conditions of the permits. It is their grievance that virtually the contract carriages are being operated as stage carriage services on the notified routes which are to be exclusively operated by State owned Transport undertaking, services thereby their fundamental and statutory rights are affected.
(iv) In W. P. No. 51604/2003 the prayer of the petitioner is to quash the Endorsement issued by the KSTA at Annexure-A refusing to grant the contract carriage permit on the ground that the vehicle in respect of which permit sought for is over 10 years old and therefore (sic ). A direction is also sought for to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner dated; 26-11-2003 without insisting the model of the vehicle. The Endorsement is issued on the basis of 10 years old age prescribed for contract carriage vehicles vide Subject No. 2/2003 dated 13-8-2003. The petitioners contend that such prescription of period for the vehicle is contrary to the decisions rendered in W. P. No. 12316/2000 disposed of on 20-6-2002 and W. P. No. 26988/2002 (D. L. Suresh v. The Secretary, R. T. A ).
(v) In W. P. No. 8512-13/2004 filed by the KSRTC Staff and Workers federation and another employee, the prayer is to quash Section 3 of karnataka Act No. 9/2003' (Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation and certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2003, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act') by which the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'kcca Act'), has been repealed, the constitutional validity of it was upheld by the constitutional Bench and another decision of the Apex Courts The derails pertaining to these writ petitions are dealt with in paragraph 5 of this order.
( 2 ) ALL these writ petitions have been heard together at length and disposed of by this common order.
( 3 )
(i) The KSRTC is a Corporation established under Section 3 of the road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. The object of establishing the corporation was to provide e
