Back
High Court Of Karnataka
M.N.Venkatachaliah, K.A.Swami, JJ.
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation - Appellants
Vs
Karnataka State Transport Authority - Respondents
Writ Appeal 514,522,523 Of 1983
Decided on: May 11, 1983
The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and directed the State Transport Authority (STA) to make consequential and requisite endorsements on the permit, granting petitioner's application for the variation of conditions of his stage carrier's permit by way of additional trips with additional vehicles on an inter-State route. The appellants, who were respondents in the writ petition, challenged the High Court's order. The main issue before the Court was whether the High Court erred in granting the additional trips to the respondent without considering the applications of the appellants, which were also pending before the STA for grant of fresh permits or for additional trips under the existing permits for the same route or substantially the same route.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, Pungappa, held a permit to operate State Carriage Services on the inter-State route between Bangalore and Dharmavaram. He applied to the STA for grant of two additional round trips on the same inter-State route with the inclusion of two additional vehicles. The STA rejected the application on the ground that the route in question was not covered by an inter-State agreement between the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. Pungappa filed a writ petition challenging the STA's order. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the STA to grant the additional trips to Pungappa.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the High Court erred in granting the additional trips to Pungappa without considering the applications of the appellants, which were also pending before the STA for grant of fresh permits or for additional trips under the existing permits for the same route or substantially the same route. The Court observed that the STA was required to consider all the applications together and dispose them of in a fair and just manner. The Court also held that the High Court erred in granting the additional trips to Pungappa even though the route in question was not covered by an inter-State agreement between the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. The Court observed that the STA was not entitled to grant the additional trips outside the inter-State agreement.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court erred in granting the additional trips to the respondent without considering the applications of the appellants, which were also pending before the STA for grant of fresh permits or for additional trips under the existing permits for the same route or substantially the same route? 2. Whether the High Court erred in granting the additional trips to the respondent even though the route in question was not covered by an inter-State agreement between the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the High Court erred in granting the additional trips to the respondent without considering the applications of the appellants, which were also pending before the STA for grant of fresh permits or for additional trips under the existing permits for the same route or substantially the same route. The Court observed that the STA was required to consider all the applications together and dispose them of in a fair and just manner. The Court also held that the High Court erred in granting the additional trips to the respondent even though the route in question was not covered by an inter-State agreement between the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. The Court observed that the STA was not entitled to grant the additional trips outside the inter-State agreement.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeals filed by the appellants and set aside the order of the High Court. The Court also directed the STA to consider the applications of the respondent and the appellants together and dispose them of in accordance with law.
Venkatachalaiah, J.
1. These three writ appeals by respondents 6, 8 and 10 respectively in Writ Petition No. 1379 of 1983 are directed against the order dt. 8-4-1983 of the learned Chief Justice, allowing the said writ petition. The writ petition arose out of certain proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the 'Act' for short) before the, State Transport Authority (the 'STA') in the matter of the prayer of the petitioner for grant of variation in the conditions, of his stage carrier's permit by way of additional trips with additional vehicles on an inter-State route. By the sad order the learned Chief Justice set aside the order dt. 25-11-1982 of the 'STA' declining the variation sought for, granted petitioner's application for the variation and directed the 'STA' to make the consequential and requisite endorsements on the permit. Sri Pungappa, petitioner in the writ petition is the common respondent 2 in each of the appeals. The parties will hereinafter be referred to with reference to their array in the writ petition.
2. The relevant and material facts are these : The Inter-State route concerned in this case is "Bangalore to Dharma varam" (183.4 Km) via Yelahanka, Doddaballapur, Thondebhavi, Gowribidanur, Kudumalakunte, Hindupur, Penukonda, Nagasamudram, Gutti. Kudumulkunte is on Karnataka State border. In the year 1968 Government approved the "Kolar Pocket Scheme" which nationalised the passenger transport services between Bangalore and various places in Kolar District and several routes within Kolar District as specified in the scheme. This Inter-State 'Bangalore to Dharmavaram' route overlaps the Kolar Pocket Scheme. Though the scheme is one of total exclusion, existing permit holders operating on the Inter-State route were saved on condition that they should not pick-up and set down passengers on the over lapping portion. Petitioner Pungappa is one such existing operator who holds a permit to operate State Carriage Services on the said inter-State route between Bangalore and Dharmavaram Which is covered by the inter-State agreement at entry No. 87 in Part A of the appendix to the agreement. His permit which had been granted by the 'STA' of Karnataka had been duly counter-signed by the 'STA' of Andhra Pradesh originally the permit was for one round tried with one vehicle. It was subsequently varied by the inclusion of an addition of one more round trip with one more vehicle exhausting the maximum quota fixed by that entry. As an existing permit holder saved under the scheme he could ask for variation of the conditions of the permit under Section 57 (8) of the 'Act' by increasing the number of trips with additional vehicles. This prayer he could make if flow additional quota was permissible under the terms of the inter-State agreement or even outside such agreement in which latter event the question of need would have to be established and the concession of a single tax would also not be available. On 14-1-1980 the petitioner Pungappa made an application under S. 57 (8) of the 'Act' for grant of two additional round trips on the same inter-State route "Bangalore and Dharmavaram" with the inclusion of two additional vehicles. The said application was notified under S. 57 (3) in the gazette dt. 24-4-1980 inviting objections. Respondent No. 6 viz., the 'KSRTC', appellant in W. A. 514/83, which is a State undertaking had applied on 10-4-1981 for a new permit on the said inter-State route "Bangalore to Dharmavaram". THE said application was also notified on 14-7-1981 inviting objections. R. Siddamma, respondent 10 in the writ petition is appellant in W. A. 522 of 1983. She was also an existing operator saved under the scheme. On 19-7-1979 she sought the grant of a fresh permit in respect of the same inter-State route of "Bangalore-Dharmavaram". That application was also duly notified in the gazette inviting objections. Sri K. G. Jagannath, respondent 8, who is appellant in W. A. 523 of 1983 is also an existing ope
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
