Back
2011 Supreme(Kar) 221
2011(3) KCCR 345
High Court of Karnataka
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.G. SABHAHIT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR
M/s S R S Travels, Bangalore by its proprietor K T Rajashjekar & Others
Versus
The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Workers Federation, Bangalore & Others
WA Nos. 5466-5503 of 2004 C/w WA No.24 of 2005, WA No.20 of 2005, WA No.23 of
2005, WA Nos. 56-61 of 2005, WA Nos. 5425-5429 of 2004, WA Nos. 1472-1475 of 2005, WA Nos. 63-152 of 2005 & WA Nos. 170-196 of 2009 (MV)
Decided on : 28-03-2011
For the Petitioner:B.R. Sundararaja Gupta, S.P. Shankar Sr. Advocate for A. Ananda Shetty, & N Rajashekar, S Prakash Shetty Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Counsel for B R Shailendra & S. Shivanjappa, Advocates, Ashok Haranahalli, AG for K Krishna, AGA. For the Respondent:S.P Shankar, Sr. Advocate for K.N. Narayana Swamy, Advocate for R2, Ashok Harohalli AG & K. Krishna, AGA for R1 & R4, Kallemullah Sharief, Advocate for R5 & M/s. B Palakshaiah & Assts. For R1, Rachappa Basavannappa Patil, M/s Pooja Travels Bhalki, M.C. Narashimhiah, B. Palakshiah & Assts., B V Shankaranarayana Rao, Advocates.
Headnote:KARNATAKA MOTOR VEHICLES TAXATION AND CERTAIN OTHER LAW (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2003 - Section 3: [V.G.Sabhahit & B.Manohar, JJ] Challenge as to - Locus standi - Repeal of Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 by Act of 2003 - Held, It is clear from the provision of the KCCA Act that under the said Act, all the Contract Carriages along with the vehicles and the staff were taken over and absorbed in KSRTC. It cannot be denied that repeal of the KCCA Act would now enable issuance of Contract Carriage Permits, which could not have been possible but for the repeal of the Act. The members of the Federation are the employees of the KSRTC and wherefore, the contention that the federation has no locus standi to challenge the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Act No. 9 of 2003 repealing the KCCA Act is untenable and accordingly, it is held that the Federation has locus standi.
KARNATAKA MOTOR VEHICLES TAXATION AND CERTAIN OTHER LAW (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2003 - Sch.7, Entry 42: [V.G.Sabhahit & B.Manohar, JJ] Repeal of KCCA Act - Held, Mere fact that constitutional validity of KCCA has been upheld by Apex Court, will not fetter power of State Legislature to repeal provisions of KCCA Act. Power to make law carries with it power to repeal. Repeal of KCCA by provisions of Section 3 of Amendment Act of 2003 is within legislative competence. Section 3 of Act of 2003, is constitutional.
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - Sections 74 & 56 & Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules (1989), Rule 256: [V.G.Sabhahit & B.Manohar, JJ] Grant of contract carriage permit - Delegation of powers by STA - Held, Secretary to STA, cannot discharge functions of the STA in granting permits. S.R.S. Travels & Ors. etc. etc. vs Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore & Ors. [W.A.Nos 5466-5503/2004 etc, DD 28.3.2011].
1. These appeals arise out of and are directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. Nos.33120 to 33121 of 2003 and connected cases dated 16.12.2004, wherein the learned single Judge has held that the writ petitions filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) Staff and Workers Federation in W.P. Nos. 8512 and 8513 of 2004 are maintainable and Section 3 of the Karnataka Act No.9/2003 – Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Karnataka Act No.9/2003’) repealing the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KCCA Act’) is unconstitutional and invalid and declared as such. The learned single Judge has further held that the Secretary, Karnataka State Transport Authority (for short, ‘STA’), cannot exercise power under Rule 56 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules to discharge the functions under Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act and has further issued certain directions to the Government for their guidance.
2. W.A. Nos. 5466 to 5503 of 2004 and W.A. Nos. 63 to 152 of 2005 are filed by persons, who are not parties to the writ petitions, being aggrieved by the order passed in W.P. Nos. 8512 to 8513 of 2004 dated 16.12.2004, wherein the learned single Judge has held that repeal of the KCCA Act is unconstitutional.
3. W.A. Nos. 56 to 61 of 2005 are filed by respondents 6 to 9 in W.P. Nos. 33120-33121 and 33237 to 33239 of 2003 and four other persons, who are not parties to the said writ petitions and W.A. Nos. 1472 to 1475 of 2005 are filed by persons who are not parties to the writ petitions, being aggrieved by the common order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P. Nos. 8512 and 8513 of 2004 dated 16.12.2004, wherein Section 3 of the Karnataka Act No. 9/2003 repealing the KCCA Act has been held to be unconstitutional.
4. W.A. Nos. 170 to 196 of 2009 are filed by the STA and Road Transport Authority (for short, ‘RTA’) and the State of Karnataka being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P. Nos. 33120 to 33121 of 2003 and W.P. Nos. 33237 to 33239 of 2003 connected with W.P. Nos. 48429 to 48438, 46814, 46815, 46816, 46817, 49936, 49937, 51804 to 51807 of 2003 and 8512 to 8513 of 2004 dated 16.12.2004, wherein the learned single Judge has held that the repeal of the KCCA Act under Section 3 of the Karnataka Act No. 9 of 2003 is unconstitutional. The appellants have also challenged the order of the learned single Judge holding that the Secretary of STA cannot grant permits.
5. W.A. Nos. 5425 to 5429 of 2004 are filed by the KSRTC., being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P. Nos. 40338 to 40342 of 2004 dated 17.11.2004, wherein the learned single Judge of this Court has held that the Secretary, STA, cannot issue permits on behalf of the STA.
6. W.A. Nos. 20/2005, 23/2005, and 24/2005 are filed being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P. Nos. 27344/2003, 31515/2003 and 46558/2003 respectively dated 18.11.2004, wherein the learned single Judge has followed the decision of this Court in W.P. No. 40339 of 2004 connected with W.P. No. 40338/2004 and other cases and has held that the Secretary, STA cannot grant permits and set aside the permits.
7. The learned single Judge in the common order passed in W.P. Nos. 33120-33121 of 2003 and connected cases dated 16.12.2004 has also framed a point for determination as to whether the Secretary, STA., has got power to issue permit and answered the same by holding that the Secretary, STA., is not authorized to issue permit on behalf of the STA and wherefore, all these appeals are considered together and disposed of by this common order. In order to appreciate the facts of these cases, it is sufficient if the facts as averred in W.P. Nos. 8512/2004 and 8513/2004 are considered as the averments made in the other writ petitions are similar
