Back
2009 Supreme(Kar) 31
2009(3) Kar. L.J. 409 (DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
S.R. BANNURMATH AND AN. VENUGOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
Smt. SULOCHANA DAMODHAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KARNATAKA, BANGALORE ANDOTHERS – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 840 of 2007 (MY) connected with Writ Appeal No. 851 of 2007 (MY).
Decided on : 15th January, 2009
Sri K Radhakrishnan, Senior Counsel fur Sri B.R. Sundararaja Gupta, Advocate fur Appellant in both W.As.;
Sri C.S. Patil, Advocate for Respondent-1 in W.A. No. 851 of 2007 and for Respondents-5 and 6 in W.A. Nil. 840 of 2007;
Sri K V. Prabhakaran, Advocate for Respundents-2 and 4 in W.A No. 840 of 2007 and for Caveator-Respondents-2 and 3 in W.A. No. 851 of 2007;
Sri C.V. Kumar, Advocate Advocates for Respondent-:3 in W.A. No. 851 of 2007 and for Respondent 4 in W.A. No. 840 of 2007.
Headnote:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 141: [S.R.Bannurmath & A.N.Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Precedent - Held, Law declared by Supreme Court is assumed to be law from inception. Normally, the decision of the Supreme Court enunciating a principle of law is applicable to all cases. In the absence of any declaration, law declared by Supreme Court cannot be said to be prospective in operation. Application of Doctrine of prospective overruling explained.
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - Section 115: [S.R.Bannurmath & A.N.Venugopala Gowda,JJ] Estoppel - Grant of Inter-State permit - Renewal of counter-signature of permits - Writ petition challenging same - Held, Writ Petition is not liable to be dismissed inasmuch as counter signature was granted in the absence of an agreement between two States. Mere acquiescence of grant or renewal of permits earlier, cannot create a right in favour of appellants nor constitute an estoppel against revision-petitioner from enforcing their rights and questioning the renewals of permits. Grant of renewal is a fresh grant, though it breathes life into previous grant, as per existing provisions of Act.
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - Section 88: [S.R. Bannurmath & A.N.Venugopala Gowda,JJ] Grant of Inter-State permit - Renewal of counter-signature of permits - Writ petition challenging same - Held, Writ Petition is not liable to be dismissed inasmuch as counter signature was granted in the absence of an agreement between two States. Mere acquiescence of grant or renewal of permits earlier, cannot create a right in favour of appellants nor constitute an estoppel against revision-petitioner from enforcing their rights and questioning the renewals of permits. Grant of renewal is a fresh grant, though it breathes life into previous grant, as per existing provisions of Act.
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - Sections 88 & 217-A (inserted by Act of 2000): [S.R. Bannurmath & A.N.Venugopala Gowda,JJ] Inter-State permit - Grant of renewal of counter-signature in absence of Inter-State agreement between two States - Held, Unless original grant and its counter signature is legal, being preceded by an Inter-State reciprocal agreement for the routes in question, there cannot be any grant or renewal of counter-signature.
Appellant in WA No. 840 of 2007 was the petitioner in W.P. No. 16305 of 2005. Respondents 1 to 4 were the original respondents. Respondents 5 and 6 are the impleaded respondents. Writ petition tiled by the appellant having been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 18-4-2007, writ appeal has been filed to set aside the said order and to grant the relief prayed in the writ petition.
Appellant in W.A. No. 851 of 2007 was the petitioner in W.P. No. 18637 of 2005. Questioning the order dated 18-4-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, by following the order passed in W.P. No. 16305 of 2005, writ appeal has been filed to set aside the 'said order and to grant the relief prayed in the writ petition.
2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. As the question of law sought to be raised is common in both the appeals, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The facts of the case in W.A. No. 840 of 2007 are sufficient to dispose of both the writ appeals.
3. Facts in a nutshell are:
One P.M. Ibrahim was the holder of intra-State stage carriage permit No. 21/STA/92 between Ballur to Talapady via Kykamba and Uppala in Kerala State. The said intra-State permit was varied by an extension from Talapady to Mangalore in Karnataka State and back, by the Kerala State Transport Authority (for short, 'STA, Kerala, with effect from 17-8-1992, subject to counter-signature by the State Transport Authority in Karnataka (for short, 'STA, Karnataka. The said permit which was counter-signed by the STA, Karnataka, expired on 3-3-1995 and was also counter-signed by the STA, Ka1l1ataka. Appellant filed an application between the primary authority for renewal of the- permit, for a further period of five years and the STA, Kerala. by its proceedings dated 7-12-2004, renewed the permit upto 2-3-2010 and the same was also counter-signed by the STA, Karnataka.
Respondents 2 and 3 preferred revision petitions before the Ka1l1ataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore
(for short, 'the Tribunal') contending that, the renewal of counter-signature by the STA, Karnataka is contrary to the provisions of the Act and also the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ashwani Kumar and Another "Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner and Another' and A. Venkatakrishnan " Stote Transport Authority, Kerala'. The said petitions were contested by the appellant, principally on the ground that, the permit granted under the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, "the old Act'" are saved under Section 217-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') and the two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said cases, are in relation to grant of fresh permits and have no application to the renewal of the counter-signature of the permit of the appellant and that the revision petition is also not maintainable on the ground that, the renewals made on 17-8-1992 and counter-signed thereafter from time to time, were not challenged.
4. After considering the record and the rival contentions, the Tribunal allowed both the revision petitions and set aside the renewals of the counter-signatures of the permits of the appellants, being aggrieved by which, the appellants filed \V.P. Nos. 16,305 of 2005 and 18637 of 2005 respectively, which were contested by respondents 2 and 3 Considering the record and the rival contentions, learned Single, Judge found the writ petitions to be devoid of merit and dismissed the same.
5. Sri K. Hadhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel appalling for the appellants along with Sri B.RS. Gupta, learned Advocate, firstly contended that, the Tribunal has failed to note that the validity of original permit right upto 2005 was not questioned by respondents 2 and 3 and consequently, the renewal of Permit granted between 2005 to 2010 by the P1imalY Authority being not a subject-matter in the State of Kerala, they could nut hav
