IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.7536 OF 2022 (MV)

BETWEEN: B.V. ASHOK AGE 40 YEARS, S/O B.G. VENKATESH, SRI VENKATESHWARA MOTOR SERVICE, NO.9-A, RACE COURSE ROAD, MADHAVANAGR, BENGALURU-560 001 (TRANSFEREE OF THE PERMIT HELD BY B.G. MURALIDHAR) …PETITIONER (BY SRI M.E. NAGESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE KARNATKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TTMC BUILDING, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M BY ITS SECRETARY.

Location: HIGH COURT OF

2. THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT KARNATAKA CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI M. RAO, HCGP FOR R-1;

SRI T. HAREESH BHANDARY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS; QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.230/2018 DATED 27.07.2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-D.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner, who is a transferee of Stage Carriage Permit No.55/92-93 for route Bengaluru-Sira and back, has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 27.07.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal” for short) in Appeal No.230/2018, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the Karnataka State Transport Road Transport Corporation (“Corporation” for short) and set aside the order dated 08.02.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Authority (“Authority” for short) granting variation of the permit.

Brief facts:

2. The permit originally stood in the name of B.G.

Muralidhar, which was subsequently transferred in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner sought variation of the permit by seeking curtailment and deviation of certain portions of the route along with the revision of timings. The Authority, after considering the proposal, and report submitted by the concerned authorities, granted the variation by its order dated 08.02.2018, holding that the variation proposed was within permissible limits prescribed under Section 80 (3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’ for short).

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the Corporation preferred Appeal No.230/2018 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 27.07.2021, allowed the appeal and set aside the variation granted by the Authority on the ground that the variation exceeded the permissible distance of 24 kilometers prescribed under Section 80 (3) of the MV Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal has totally misinterpreted the provisions of Section 80(3) of the MV Act. It is submitted that the variation granted by the Authority was within 24 kilometers, which is the limit prescribed under the statute. It is further contended that the Tribunal has erroneously calculated the distance by taking into account both the forward and return journey, thereby arriving at a figure of 42 kilometers, which is contrary to Section 80 (3) of the MV Act. It is submitted that the statute only prescribes that the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed 24 kilometers, it does not contemplate computation of the forward and return journey together. Therefore, it is contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is legally unsustainable.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-

Corporation supports the order passed by the Tribunal and contends that the variation granted by the State Transport Authority would effectively increase the route beyond the permissible limit prescribed under Section 80 (3). It is contended that while considering the variation, the entire trip including forward and return journeys has to be taken into account. Since the variation granted would result in the