Writ Petition No. 20072 of 2021 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15071 WP No. 20072 of 2021 C/W WP No. 21265 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 20072 OF 2021 (MV) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 21265 OF 2021 (MV) IN WP No. 20072/2021 BETWEEN: 1. SRI MURTHY V GOWDAR S/O LATE GOWDAR VEERANNA AGED 65 YEARS ADVOCATE AND AGRICULTURIST R/A NEAR KSRTC BUS DEPOT CHURCH EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka 2. SRI MOHAMMED HANEEF S/O M ALLABHKSHI AGED 44 YEARS, MS TRAVELS R/A NO.1263 TILAK NAGAR, MOLKALMURU CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 535. (BY SRI. LOKESH R.,ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15071 WP No. 20072 of 2021 C/W WP No. 21265 of 2021 AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY I FLOOR, A BLOCK, TTMC COMPLEX, BMTC BUILDINGS, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027 REP BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CENTRAL OFFICES K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027 (CONSTITUTED U/S 3 OF THE RTC ACT 1950). (BY SRI.HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE FOR …RESPONDENTS R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SO FAR AS RP 28/2021 AND RP 29/2021 DATED 24.9.2021 IN RP NO.26/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES MARKED ANNEXURE-K TO THE W.P. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15071 WP No. 20072 of 2021 C/W WP No. 21265 of 2021 IN WP NO. 21265/2021 BETWEEN:
Legal Reasoning
1. MR. SANDEEP S/O UMESH H R MAJOR R/AT ASHOK NAGAR HAVAMBAVI, SIRUGUPPA ROAD BELLARY. 2. SRI H R UMESH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O VIRUPAKSHI GOWDA R/AT SIRGUPPA ROAD, ASHOK NAGAR, HEVEMBHAVI BELLARY-583101. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRIKANTH A AND SRI. M R V ACHAR., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY 1ST FLOOR, A BLOCK TTMC COMPLEX BMTC BUILDINGS K H ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15071 WP No. 20072 of 2021 C/W WP No. 21265 of 2021 2. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. (BY SMT.VAHEEDA., AGA FOR R1; SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE FOR R2) ...RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS; QUASH THE COMMON ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN R.P. NO.26/2021 AND R.P. NO.27/2021 DATED 24.09.2021 AND CONNECTED CASES MARKED AS ANNX-J TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS CONCERNED. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15071 WP No. 20072 of 2021 C/W WP No. 21265 of 2021 ORAL ORDER These petitions are by those who have been permitted, on their applications filed in the year 2012-13, to operate on certain routes, and the permits so issued have been called in question by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation [KSRTC] in partial success because each time, this Court has directed the concerned State Transport Authority [STA] to reconsider the applications. The recent decision of the STA is on 02.02.2021. The KSRTC has called this order dated 02.02.2021 in question under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the third time in Revision Petition Nos. 27/2021, 28/2021 and 29/2021 with the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short 'the Tribunal']. 2. The Tribunal by the impugned common order dated 24.09.2021 has set aside the decision to grant and renew permits. This Court, on 18.02.2022 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15071 WP No. 20072 of 2021 C/W WP No. 21265 of 2021 and 18.01.2022, has stayed the operation of the Tribunal's common
Decision
order dated 24.09.2021 permitting the petitioners to operate on the respective routes. It is placed on record that with the permits so issued and renewed have also been subsequently renewed, and such renewal will be in vogue until 2028. The details of the common order of the State Transport Authority, which are set aside by the Tribunal by the impugned order are as under: Revision Application No. Sl. No. 26/2021 18 Subject No. Permit No. Route Sub.No.221/ 2015 (D) published on 02.02.2021 Permit No. 05/2013- 14 Expiry: 12.06.2023 Bheemasamudra to Bellary New Private Bus Stand vice versa 27/2021 16 Sub.No.222/ 2015 (D) Published on 02.02.2021 Permit No. 03/2013- 14 Expiry: 05.06.2023 Bellary New Private Bus Stand to Beemasamudra vice versa - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15071 WP No. 20072 of 2021 C/W WP No. 21265 of 2021 28/2021 17 Sub.No.224/ 2015 (D) published on 02.02.2021 Permit No. 04/2013- 14 Expiry: New Bellary Private Bus Stand to Challakere 12.06.2023 vice versa 29/2021 19 Sub.No.223/ 2015 (D) published on 02.02.2021 Permit No. 6/2013 Expiry: Bellary New Private Bus Stand to Challakere 12.06.2023 vice versa As regards the earlier proceedings, this Court must refer to the two sets of writ petitions and these are as stated hereafter. W.P. No.18321-330/2015 3. The STA has granted permits to the petitioners after a joint route survey. The KSRTC has successfully challenged such decision in RP Nos.210 and 213 of 2013. The petitioners have called in question the Tribunal's order setting aside the Transport Authority's decision in this set of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.18321-330/2015 and connected matters. This Court has disposed of these petitions - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15071 WP No. 20072 of 2021 C/W WP No. 21265 of 2021 by order dated 28.01.2016, and as regards the Court's decision against the Tribunal's order to interfere with the State Transport Authority's order, the reference must be made to Paragraph-5 which reads as under: "Hence, the appropriate course in the instant case also would be to uphold the order passed by the KSTAT but by modifying the same only to the extent to remand the matter to the State Transport Authority for holding a joint route survey and thereafter take a fresh decision in the matter." W.P.No.51934-935/2016 and W.P. Nos.52657- 58/2016: 4. The STA, after this Court's order dated 28.01.2016 in the aforesaid writ petitions, has once again vide its decision dated 25.07.2016 has reaffirmed the decision to grant permits which is again called in question by the KSRTC with the Tribunal in Review Petition Nos.201/2016 and 202/2016. The Tribunal has allowed these petitions - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15071 WP No. 20072 of 2021 C/W WP No. 21265 of 2021 by its order dated 14.09.2016 setting aside the decision of the Transport Authority. The Tribunal's order dated 14.09.2016 is called in question in these writ petitions. This Court has disposed of these writ petitions by separate orders on 09.04.2019. This Court has set aside the Tribunal's order dated 14.09.2016 restoring the proceedings to the Transport Authority to consider "applications for renewal of Stage Carriage Permit in accordance with law". 5. After this Court's order as aforesaid, a New Comprehensive Area Scheme for the entire State of Karnataka is notified under the Notification dated 07.03.2019, and in terms of this notification, only the State Transport undertakings of Karnataka must operate to the complete exclusion of the other persons within the State of Karnataka, but exception is for [i] the State Transport Undertakings of other States and [ii] the existing permits with the trips and - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15071 WP No. 20072 of 2021 C/W WP No. 21265 of 2021 vehicles in operation as on 18.12.2014 and also pending renewal to operate their services on inter- State, intra-State, inter-district and intra-district routes, and [iii] the existing permits in operation with trips and vehicles of the private stage carriage operators, who are operating on non-monopoly routes/area as on 24.03.2018. 6. On the restoration by this Court as aforesaid in W.P.Nos.51934-935/2016 and W.P. Nos.52657-58/2016, the STA by its decision dated 02.02.2021 has resolved to restore the grant of permits and also to grant renewal for the period up to June 2023. The State Transport Corporation has carried such decision in revision under the subject revision petitions. The Tribunal has essentially interfered with the STA's order for the reason, when translated into English, reads: A joint survey has been conducted as directed by the Hon'ble High Court by the Senior Motor Inspectors and private - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15071 WP No. 20072 of 2021 C/W WP No. 21265 of 2021 operators, and the Joint Route Survey establishes that there is overlapping of a distance of 1.1Kms on Bengaluru National Highway Bypass between Chitradurga - Medahalli Cross to Rural Police Station. However, the STA has not considered this essential element. 7. Sri R. Lokesh and Sri K. Shrikanth, the learned counsels for the petitioners, relying upon a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.8832/2011 and connected matters, which are disposed of on 16.03.2011, argue that By-pass Roads cannot be treated as notified routes and if it cannot be treated as notified routes, there would be no overlapping. The learned counsels invite this Court's attention to Paragraph-6 of this Order, which reads: "It appears, from time to time, the RTA has been conducting JRS for the entire area and so also has given finding in respect of different inter sections as to whether it amounts to over-lapping or inter-section. In respect of the by-pass roads are concerned, if the area is notified earlier to the formation of - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15071 WP No. 20072 of 2021 C/W WP No. 21265 of 2021 the by-pass roads, it cannot be treated as one which falls within the definition "Notified Route". The Tribunal, confirming the finding of the RTA has dismissed the revision petitions filed by the rival operators wherein the KSRTC also has been one of the party." 8. Sri Hareesh Bhandary T, the learned counsel for KSRTC, cannot contest the proposition as is emphasized by this Court in the afore decision, but the learned counsel submits that this Court must not interfere with the Tribunal's order because the petitioners' permits would not be saved under the Notification dated 07.03.2019. The learned counsel argues that if the fresh permit was granted in the year 2013, the same is set aside by the Tribunal in the Review Petitions in RP Nos.210 and 213 of 2013; that this Court has confirmed the Tribunal's order and the corollary of this would be that the permits stood cancelled. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:15071 WP No. 20072 of 2021 C/W WP No. 21265 of 2021 9. Sri Hareesh Bhandary T asserts that the STA vide the next decision dated 25.07.2016 has resolved once again to grant fresh permit but that has also been set aside by the Tribunal in the next set of Review Petitions in RP Nos.199-200/2016 and that the concomitant position will be that the permits were cancelled as of the Notification dated 07.03.2019 and this Court's order in the subsequent writ petitions is dated 09.04.2019. 10. Sri Hareesh Bhandary T emphasizes that if the petitioners have operated the permits, either during the earlier round of litigation or during the present round of litigation, it would only be a concession and the operation of permits, which are under challenge, would not be saved. In support of this canvass, the learned counsel relies upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1783/2006, which is decided on - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:15071 WP No. 20072 of 2021 C/W WP No. 21265 of 2021 04.01.2007, and the learned counsel invites this Court's attention to the following: "This issue need not detain us for long since the law is well settled that any permit or licence can be treated as a valid one if the same is granted by the authority competent to do so. In the instant case, the stage carriage permit dated 30.04.1998 granted by the competent authority had been set aside by the KSTAT by its order dated 20.08.2002 and the same had been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 02.12.2002. Therefore, the setting aside of the permit was confirmed. All that the Division Bench of this Court had done was to permit the appellant to operate the services which was only a concession granted by this Court until the matter was disposed of by the RTA and the same cannot be treated as a grant of permit or validation of the permit. Therefore, the appellant cannot seek for the extension of the benefit on this ground." 11. Sri R. Lokesh and Sri A. Srikanth submit that this Court must differentiate the present case from the case on hand before the Division Bench - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:15071 WP No. 20072 of 2021 C/W WP No. 21265 of 2021 pointing out that in those cases, the concerned authority had rejected the application from which the matters were taken up to the Division Bench, and in the present case, the STA has granted permission every time the matter is restored back for reconsideration. They also submit that the decision in the aforesaid case was regarding Kolar Pocket Scheme, and the present case relates to a non- monopoly route. 12. These circumstances and the rival submissions are considered apart from the fact that the petitioners have been operating from the initial grant in the year 2013 and they also have the benefit of renewal up to the year 2028. This Court cannot, in the facts and circumstances, hold that the petitioners are operating their permits only as a concession. This Court must record that the STA on each occasion has restored the grant of permit and also renewed the same, and on each occasion, the Tribunal, because of - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:15071 WP No. 20072 of 2021 C/W WP No. 21265 of 2021 certain deficiencies in the Joint Route Survey, has intervened. Ultimately, it is opined that the petitioners' vehicles will have to traverse a distance of 1.1 kilometres on a by-pass which is held by this Court not to be overlapping. In the light of the afore, the petitions are allowed setting aside the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal's common order dated 24.09.2021. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV