Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
A.R. Somnath Ayyar and G.K. Govinda Bhat, JJ.
M.C. Krishna Murthy —Appellant
Vs.
Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal and others —Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1774 of 1962
Decided on : 05-02-1963
Regional Transport Authority - Extension of Route - Section 63, Motor Vehicles Act - Rules for the grant of permits without counter-signature - Consultation with other Regional Transport Authorities - Validity of extension - Consultation as a mandatory provision - Power of Regional Transport Authority under Section 48 - Supersession of rules made by Government - Remand of appeal by Revenue Appellate Tribunal
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought an extension of his stage carriage route, which was opposed by respondent 4. The Regional Transport Authority granted the extension, but the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the Revenue Appellate Tribunal ruled against the petitioner, citing non-compliance with rules made by the Government under Section 63(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Revenue Appellate Tribunal remitted the matter to the Regional Transport Authority for fresh consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the extension granted by the Regional Transport Authority was not properly granted as it did not consult with the other Regional Transport Authorities as required by the rules. However, the court also considered the possibility that the extension was granted under Section 48 of the Act, in which case it would be valid subject to the counter-signature of the Regional Transport Authorities of Tumkur and Mandya. The court also criticized the Revenue Appellate Tribunal for not recording findings on all the questions arising in the appeal.
Issues: Non-compliance with rules made by the Government under Section 63(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, validity of the extension granted by the Regional Transport Authority, need for the extension, and the failure of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal to record findings on all the questions arising in the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the extension granted by the Regional Transport Authority was not properly granted due to non-compliance with the rules made by the Government under Section 63(1). However, the court also considered the possibility that the extension was granted under Section 48 of the Act, in which case it would be valid subject to the counter-signature of the Regional Transport Authorities of Tumkur and Mandya. The court also criticized the Revenue Appellate Tribunal for not recording findings on all the questions arising in the appeal.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal, and directed the Revenue Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the outstanding questions arising in the appeal afresh and according to law. The court also revoked the stay order made by this Court and revived the stay order made by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal. Additionally, the court directed the Revenue Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the matter within a month.
Somnath Iyer, J.—The petitioner is operating his stage carriage on the route between Yedavani and Bangalore, the major part of which lies within the region of the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore. On November 6, 1961 he made an application to that Regional Transport Authority for the extension of his route. What he wanted to do was to proceed from Yedavani to a point called Bheemanahalli via Devalapura in continuation of the existing route. That application was considered by the Regional Transport Authority and allowed. From that decision of the Regional Transport Authority respondent 4 who is an operator between Nagamangala and Bangalore and who opposed the petitioner's application for the extension of the route, appealed to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and that appeal was allowed. The petitioner's further appeal to the Revenue Appellate Tribunal was dismissed and so it is that he is be fore us now.
2. The route which was common to the petitioner and respondent 4 before the extension was granted by the Regional Transport Authority was the route between Bangalore and Yedavani. Respondent 4 was proceeding on his return journey from Yedavani to Devalapura and further to Nagamangala. The extended route which was allowed by the Regional Transport Authority and which lies between Yedavani and Bheemanahalti touches Devalapura which is also touched by respondent 4 on his journey between Yedavani and Nagamangala. The contention of respondent 4 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was that he would be affected by the extension granted by the Regional Transport Authority. The view expressed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was that there was no need for the extension prayed for by the petitioner since Bheemanahalli was a small village situate about a couple of miles away from Devalapura and that there was really no need for the establishment of a stage carriage service for that short distance. It appears also to have been of the view that, since the stage carriage service of respondent 4 was proceeding from Yedavani to Devalapura that route was sufficiently served.
3. The State Transport Tribunal was also of the view that the extension of the petitioner's route was granted by the Regional Transport Authority in transgression of certain rules which had been made by the Government under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Those rules conferred power on the Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit to be effective even outside its own region even without the counter-signature of the Regional Transport Authority of that region, provided the procedure prescribed by those rules was observed. That procedure consisted of publication of the application for extension under Section 57 (3) and consultation with the Regional Transport Authority of that other region. Although it was not disputed that the first part of the procedure had been followed by the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore, what was undisputed was that the consultation with the Regional Transport Authority of the other region had not been made.
It should be mentioned here that, while according to the petitioner the distance between Yedavani and Bheemanahalli is only about eight miles, that distance according to respondent 4 is eleven miles. There is also a controversy as to the exact distance between Bheemanahalli and Devalapura. While the petitioner says it is three miles, respondent 4 has given varying versions about it. But what is, however, not disputed is that the route between Yedavani and Bheemanahalli is not within the region of the Bangalore Regional Transport Authority but lies partly within the region of the Tumkur Regional Transport Authority and partly within the region of the Mandya Regional Transport Authority. Since it was not disputed before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal that neither the Mandya Regional Transport Authority nor the Tumkur Regional Transport Authority had
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
