SMT. VIJAYA v. PRABHU, W
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17264 WP No. 9411 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.9411 OF 2025 (MV) BETWEEN: SRI. H.G. CHANDRAMOULI, S/O LATE H. GURUBASAPPA, AGED 59 YEARS, R/A C.K. PURA, KELAKOTE, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. (BY SRI. LOKESH R., ADV.) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY I FLOOR, 'A' BLOCK, TTMC BUILDINGS, SHANTHINAGARA, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027 BY ITS SECRETARY. …PETITIONER 2. SMT. VIJAYA V. PRABHU, W/O LATE K.R. VASUDEVA PRABHU, AGED MAJOR, ARYA DURGAMMA STREET, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 202. 3. SRI. H.G. RAVI KAMATH, S/O LATE H. GOVINDA RAO KAMATH, AGED: MAJOR, SRI KRISHNA MOTORS, ARYA DURGAMMA STREET, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 202. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17264 WP No. 9411 of 2025
Legal Reasoning
4. SRI. H.G. NARENDRA KAMATH, S/O LATE H. GOVINDA RAO KAMATH, AGED: MAJOR, SRI KRISHNA MOTORS, ARYA DURGAMMA STREET, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 202. (BY SRI. M RAJ KUMAR, AGA R1 SRI C.V. KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2 SRI SATEESH CHANDRA K.V., ADV. FOR C/R3 SRI L.T. GOPAL, ADV. FOR R4) …RESPONDENTS THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN RP 37/2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS DATED 25.11.2024 SO FOR AS RP 88/2022 MARKED ANNX-J TO THE WRIT PETITION BY ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTIONS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal's common order dated 25.11.2024 insofar as it relates to the rejection of his petition in RP No.88/2022. The petitioner in his petition in RP No.88/2022 has challenged the Karnataka State Transport Authority's [KSTA] decision dated 21.04.2022. The Karnataka State - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17264 WP No. 9411 of 2025 Transport Appellate Tribunal, which is for short referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, in rejecting the petition has reasoned thus: "At the outset it is relevant to mention here that the petitioner H. G. Chandramouli is challenging the grant of transfer of three permits in favour of the Respondent Nos.2 to 4. i.e., H.G. Ravi Kamath, Smt. Vijaya V. Prabhu and H.G. Narendra Kamath. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner, H.G. Chandramouli has locus standi to challenge the said transfer of three permits in favour of Respondent Nos.2 to 4. It is seen from the records that the original permit holder Smt. Anuradha M. Kamath of Permit No.25, 27 and 29/2003. Her husband- H .G. Muralidhar Kamath had filed death transfer of permit applications before the Respondent No.1 authority. Except having common route with that of the Respondent No.2 to 4 permits for a distance of 90 kms in between Bhadravathi and Chitradurga, the revision petitioner-H.G. Chandramouli, is not an aggrieved person and has not suffered any legal injury. Admittedly, the revision petitioner is a sector operator who has no claim over the permit held by the deceased Anuradha M. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17264 WP No. 9411 of 2025 Kamath. Therefore, no right of hearing or right or representation has been given to the petitioner in the matter of transfer of permit. As per Sec.214 of MV Act, 1988, this Tribunal cannot reverse or alter the decision of the authority, unless the aggrieved is able to show that the action of the authority has resulted in failure of justice. In the case on hand, the revision petitioner - H.G. Chandramouli has not been able to show a miscarriage of justice. 2. The Tribunal's orders are in the facts and circumstances which are stated in précis is thus: a. The peculiar facts and circumstances, when stated in brief, will be that the third respondent is opposing the transfer of permits in favour of the petitioner and his other family members and these permits are originally in favour of Ms. Anuradha M. Kamath, who is no more. Her husband, Mr. H. G. Muralidhar Kamath, has applied for transfer of permits in his favour depositing the requisite fees. The Karnataka State Transport Authority [KSTA] has considered this application favorably with the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17264 WP No. 9411 of 2025 petitioner and the other family members raising a dispute. The family members have either contended that the permits were in favour of their joint family or a partnership firm and Mr. H.G. Muralidhar Kamath asserting that the permits were only in favour of his deceased wife. b. The decision to transfer the permits in favor of Mr. H.G. Muralidhar Kamath is called in question with 'the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has allowed challenge by its order dated 03.09.2021 but restoring the proceedings for consideration directing the parties to maintain Status Quo. On such remand, the KSTA by its decision pronounced on 03.03.2022 has resolved to maintain Status Quo till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.50/2018 [a civil dispute amongst Mr. H.G. Muralidhar Kamath, the petitioner and other family members] directing the parties to intimate the status of the suit from time to time to take further action while also directing restoration of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17264 WP No. 9411 of 2025 the subject permits for the limited purpose of permitting them to operate the services. 3. Mr. Lokesh R., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Tribunal in rejecting the review petition for reasons as stated above has overlooked the petitioner's primary grievance that the private respondents have not filed their own separate application and paid a requisite fee and the order dated 04.01.2019, which stands restored by the KSTA's Resolution dated 21.04.2022 is a transfer made on the application of Mr. H.G. Muralidhar Kamath. The learned counsel next submits that the Tribunal has failed to consider Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, 'the MV Act'] and the bar of the civil Court to go into the questions on permits in predicating its final decision on transfer of the permits in favour of those who claim under Mrs. Anuradha Kamath on the outcome in the suit. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17264 WP No. 9411 of 2025 4. In response, Mr. Sateesh Chandra K.V. and Mr. C.V. Kumar, the learned counsels for the private respondents, without opposition from Mr. Raj Kumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, submit that the application filed by Mr. H.G. Muralidhar Kamath and the payment made by him for transfer of the permits would suffice. They also reiterate that the subject permits have been renewed with an Endorsement dated 26.11.2020 for the period between 28.04.2020 and 27.04.2025 and that this permit continues to be in force. 5. This Court must observe that it is undisputed that the subject permits were in favour of Mrs. Anuradha Kamath who has died and that upon her demise, her husband, Mr. H.G. Muralidhar Kamath has filed an application with the requisite fee for transfer of all the six permits. These permits are also transferred in his favour, but with the other family members raising dispute referring to the suit - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17264 WP No. 9411 of 2025 in O.S.No.50/2018 asserting that the permits must be transferred either in favour of the joint family or in favour of a firm corresponding to their respective cases. This dispute inter se those who could claim under Mrs. Anuradha kamath is resolved for the present with the KSTA stating that Status Quo shall be maintained with liberty to operate the services and subject to further orders in the suit with a direction to the parties to update the progress in the suit. 6. This arrangement, which is as regards the transfer of the permit, is peculiar to the circumstances, and if these peculiar circumstances have come up because of the application filed by Mr. Muralidhar Kamath upon payment of prescribed fee and a particular arrangement is made, this Court is of the considered view that a pedantic approach cannot be taken to interfere on the ground that each one of the family members should have applied separately or paid the fees separately. At this stage, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17264 WP No. 9411 of 2025 this Court must observe that the persons who claim under Mrs. Anuradha Kamath have not called in question the interim arrangement provided by the KSTA in its decision dated 21.04.2022. Therefore, there cannot be any interference on the first ground, 7. As regards the second ground viz., the bar under Section 941 of the MV Act in the civil Court to entertain any question relating to the grant of permit or license and granting an injunction against any action that will have to be taken under the MV Act, this Court must observe that this prohibition is not against the jurisdiction of a civil Court to decide on the legacy that must be on the demise of a permit holder; the disputes on devolvement of the legacy will 1 Bar on jurisdiction of Civil Courts. No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to the grant of a permit [or licence issued under any scheme] under this Act, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the duly constituted authorities under this Act with regard to the grant of a permit [or licence issued under any scheme], shall be entertained by any Civil Court. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17264 WP No. 9411 of 2025 have to be decided by the civil Courts based on the law that would apply, and in the meantime, the jurisdiction is vested with the authorities under the MV Act to take a decision on permits and licenses subject to the final decision in the corresponding suit with the civil Court. This Court opines that only this can be the import of the prohibition under Section 94 of the MV Act as the question of permit and license is examined in the wider realm of public convenience and such other factors as are relevant and this consideration will be outside the civil Court’s jurisdiction. As such, there cannot be interference even on the second ground. The petition, therefore, stands rejected. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3