Allowed

S Swaraj v. Karnataka State Transport Authority

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2022WP/416/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court issued Writs against the order of the Appellate Tribunal and rejection orders by the RTO, despite the existence of alternative remedies under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the erroneous non-consideration of notifications.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 27.02.2016 by Appellate Tribunal, the endorsement dated 26.12.2011 by Respondent No.1, and the order dated 1.12.2021 by Respondent No.2 are quashed; the matter remanded to Respondent N

S Swaraj Vs Karnataka State Transport Authority — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^th DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.416 OF 2022 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

S. SWARAJ S/O T. SATHYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, MARUTHI MOTOR SERVICE, NO.299, VINAYA MARGA, SIDDHARTHANAGAR, MYSURU-570 011.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI MOHAMMED DASTAGIR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (BY ITS SECRETARY) TTMC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶13

REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (BY ITS SECRETARY), CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313.

¶14

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

¶15

¶16

CORPORATION, (BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR), K.H. DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 27.02.2016 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KSTAT IN APPEAL NO.827/2015, PRODUCED HEREWITH MARKED ANNEXURE-N AND ETC.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Petitioner was granted with stage carriage permit No.4/1996-97. Respondent No.1 had granted variations to the permit converting the permit into inter-State permit. Those variations were set aside by the KSTAT and also by this Court and the matter was remanded to respondent No.1 to consider the matter afresh. Respondent No.1 by resolution dated 14.10.2011 bearing No.207 in Subject No.171/2010 converted the inter State permit to intra State permit.

¶23

¶24

Taking exception to the same, the respondent No.3 filed an appeal before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in a Appeal No.827/2015. The Appellate Tribunal, by impugned order dated 27.02.2016, set aside the resolution passed by the respondent No.2 converting inter-State permit into intra-State permit.

¶25

Meanwhile, the petitioner submitted an application with the respondent No.2 for variation of permit and for renewal of the permit. The respondent No.2 by relying on order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, rejected the applications submitted by the petitioner. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as on the date of filing of the application for variation of the permit and also renewal of the permit, the permit granted to the petitioner was saved under the notifications dated 28.09.2017 and 17.03.2019 issued by the Government of Karnataka. Hence, the respondent No.2 has committed an error in rejecting the applications submitted by the petitioner.

¶27

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in view of the availability of alternative remedy of appeal provision under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He further submits that, the impugned order at Annexure-N is challenged after the delay of more than 4 years and the permits granted in favour of the petitioner are not saved under the notifications issued by the Government of Karnataka.

¶29

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal as well as impugned resolution passed by respondent No.2 is in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference.

¶30

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶31

The resolution passed by respondent No.2 converting the inter-State permit into intra-State permit was questioned by the respondent No.3 before the Appellate Tribunal. The

¶32

¶33

Appellate Tribunal set aside the resolution passed by the respondent No.2 on the ground that, a place called Bisalawadi which is situated in Tamil Nadu and also finds a place in the route to be operated by the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has submitted an application with respondent No.2 for renewal of permit and also for variation of route. The respondent No.2 rejected the application stating that the permits granted in favour of the petitioner was not saved under the aforesaid notifications and also on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal has set aside the variation of the permit converting inter-State into intra-State permit. The respondent No.2 was required to consider the application submitted by the petitioner independently in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and could not have rejected the applications on the ground that variation in permit was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.

¶34

9. Respondent No.2 rejected the application stating that

¶35

the permit granted in favour of the petitioner was not saved under the said notifications since, the petitioner was not

¶36

¶37

operating on the original route, but however, the notifications does not specify that the petitioner should be operating on the original route. Whether the permit granted in favour of the petitioner was saved by the said notifications is a matter which requires to be considered by the respondent No.1 afresh. The impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is without reference to the aforesaid notifications. Hence, the respondent No.1 is required to consider the application afresh filed by the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid notifications which are issued by the Government of Karnataka saving particular permits which were operating as on the particular date. Hence, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 requires to be set aside and consequently, the endorsement dated 26.12.2011 issued by respondent No.1 at Annexure-M and impugned order dated 1.12.2021 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-W also requires to be quashed.

¶38

10. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶39

Writ petition is allowed.

¶40

¶41

The impugned order dated 27.02.2016 passed by the Appellate Tribunal at Annexure-N and the impugned endorsement dated 26.12.2011 issued by respondent No.1 at Annexure-M and impugned order dated 1.12.2021 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-W are hereby quashed.

¶42

The matter is remanded to the respondent No.2 for fresh consideration and the State Transport Authority shall consider the same and to pass appropriate order within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶43

Respondent No.2 is directed to forward the file to respondent No.1 forth with.

¶44

All contentions are kept open.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

S Swaraj v. Karnataka State Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Swaraj v. Karnataka State Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S B Shadakshara Reddy Vs Additional Commissioner of Transport and Secretary Ksta

Sri Abdul Rawoof Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Sri H R Renuka Prasad Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri R S Yathisha Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Rajakumara Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Sachin Chandran Vs the Station House Officer