Disposed

Mohammed Irshad v. the Regional Transport Authority

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2023WP/9802/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Batch of writ petitions by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and private permit holders challenging orders of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal that had set aside renewal of stage carriage permits. The Court held that renewal of a permit is akin to a fresh grant, and upheld the RTA's power to renew under the Motor Vehicles Act and Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, specifi

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 19.03.2021, 07.04.2021 and 07.07.2021 in R.P.Nos.94, 108, 105, 110, 112, 123, 124, 127, 106, 109, 119, 107, 104, 118, 130,

Mohammed Irshad Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.9802 OF 2021 (MV) C/W

¶7

WRIT PETITION NOS.8050/2021, 12796/2021, 12838/2021, 12873/2021, 12931/2021, 12935/2021, 12942/2021, 12969/2021, 12970/2021, 12971/2021, 12972/2021, 12973/2021, 12974/2021, 12977/2021, 13610/2021, 13618/2021, 13687/2021, 19107/2021, 20295/2021, 21356/2021, 21609/2021, 23096/2021, 89/2022, 2330/2022, 2855/2022 & 4401/2022 (MV)

¶8

IN WP.NO.9802/2021

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MOHAMMED IRSHAD S/O.T.MOHAMMED BASHEER AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO.842, NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE GOWRIPET KOLAR – 563 101 ... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI B.R.SUNDARARAJA GUPTA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BENGALURU RURAL BDA COMPLEX KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034 BY ITS SECRETARY

¶14

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD

¶15

¶16

SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶17

3. REHANA BEGUM

¶18

W/O.SHAIK SHAFIULLA MAJOR NO.33, 11^TH CROSS SHAMPUR MAIN ROAD NEXT TO ASHRAFIA MOSQUE NEAR DR.AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE R.T.NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 032 … RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1; SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI M.V.NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

¶20

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2021 (ANNEXURE-E) PASSED IN RP.NOS. 94 & 108 OF 2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶22

IN WP.NO.8050/2021

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

N.SRINIVASA NAIDU S/O.NARAYANASWAMY NAIDU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ANJANI BADAVANE, CHINTAMANI CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 125

¶25

SYED FAYAZ AHMED S/O.ABDUL RAZACK SAB AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS CHINNASANDRA VILLAGE BENGALURU ROAD

¶26

CHIKKABALLAPURA 563 125 … PETITIONERS

¶27

(BY SRI B.R.SUNDARARAJA GUPTA, ADVOCATE)

¶28

¶29

AND:

¶30

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BENGALURU RURAL BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034

¶31

BY ITS SECRETARY

¶32

KARNATAKA STATE BOARD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR … RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1;

¶34

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

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-G) PASSED IN RP.NOS. 105 & 110 OF 2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶36

IN WP.NO.12796/2021

¶37

BETWEEN:

¶38

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CENTRAL), K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER (ROUTE) … PETITIONER

¶39

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶40

AND:

¶41

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL), BDA COMPLEX KORAMANGALA

¶42

¶43

BENGALURU – 560 034

¶44

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶45

SRI H.A.MANJUNATHA PRASANNA S/O.H.P.APPANNACHARI NO.104, 'C' BLOCK GOLDEN STAR APARTMENT HOODI, M.D.POST BENGALURU – 560 048

¶46

REGIONAL TRANSPORT amendment carried AUTHORITY (URBAN) out by order BENGALURU dated 20.07.2021 BY ITS SECRETARY

¶47

… RESPONDENTS

¶48

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1 & R-3; SRI M.E.NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) ***

¶49

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN RP.NO. 130/2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶50

IN WP.NO.12838/2021

¶51

BETWEEN:

¶52

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CENTRAL), K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER (ROUTE) … PETITIONER

¶53

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶54

AND:

¶55

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA

¶56

¶57

BENGALURU - 560 037 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE SECRETARY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 037 3. SRI ANIL KUMAR S/O.LATE NAGARAJ NO.16, 1^ST CROSS, A.V.ROAD NEAR KALASIPALYA BUS STAND BENGALURU-560 002 4. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT amended carried AUTHORITY (URBAN) out by order BENGALURU dated 20.07.2021 BY ITS SECRETARY … RESPONDENTS

¶58

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1, R-2 & R-4; SRI C.M.S.SHARIFF, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) ***

¶59

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN RP.NO. 104/2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶60

IN WP.NO.12873/2021

¶61

BETWEEN:

¶62

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CENTRAL), K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER (ROUTE) … PETITIONER (BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶63

¶64

AND:

¶65

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2. SRI ASHOK KUMAR S/O.MUNISWAMY KUNDANAHALLI VILLAGE HORALAGERE POST MALUR TALUK KOLAR – 563 130 3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT amended carried AUTHORITY (URBAN) out by order BENGALURU dated 20.07.2021 BY ITS SECRETARY … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1 & R-3; SRI M.E.NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) ***

¶66

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN RP.NO. 126/2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶67

IN WP.NO.12931/2021

¶68

BETWEEN:

¶69

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CENTRAL), K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER (ROUTE) … PETITIONER

¶70

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶71

¶72

AND:

¶73

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶74

SRI RAFIUULLA S/O.RAHAMATHULLA NO.3387, 5^TH CROSS GAYATHRINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 021 3. SRI B.A.MUSHEER AHAMED S/O.K.B.ANWAR BASHA PROP: V.M.MOTOR NO.7/2, AZEEMA BUILDING 1^ST FLOOR, KALASIPALYAM BENGALURU – 560 002 … RESPONDENTS

¶75

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1) ***

¶76

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN RP.NO. 119/2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶77

IN WP.NO.12935/2021

¶78

BETWEEN:

¶79

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CENTRAL), K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER (ROUTE) … PETITIONER

¶80

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶81

¶82

AND:

¶83

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶84

SRI SRINIVASA REDDY S/O.T.RAMAIAH TIPPASANDRA VILLAGE GUNJOOR VARTHOOR BENGALURU – 590 087 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1) ***

¶85

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN RP.NO. 99/2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶86

IN WP.NO.12942/2021

¶87

BETWEEN:

¶88

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CENTRAL), K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER (ROUTE) … PETITIONER

¶89

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶90

AND:

¶91

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶92

¶93

THE SECRETARY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034

¶94

SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O.N.RAMARAO NO.15, 6^TH CROSS LIC COLONY, 3^RD BLOCK JAYANAGARA EAST BENGALURU – 560 011 … RESPONDENTS

¶95

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI M.E.NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) ***

¶96

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN RP.NO. 109/2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶97

IN WP.NO.12969/2021

¶98

BETWEEN:

¶99

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CENTRAL), K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER (ROUTE) … PETITIONER

¶100

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶101

AND:

¶102

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶103

¶104

THE SECRETARY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034

¶105

SRI D.R.SRINIVASA GOWDA S/O.RAMEGOWDA NO.303, 5^TH CROSS MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT K.R.PURAM BENGALURU – 560 088 … RESPONDENTS

¶106

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI M.E.NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) ***

¶107

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN RP.NO. 112/2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶108

IN WP.NO.12970/2021

¶109

BETWEEN:

¶110

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CENTRAL), K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER (ROUTE) … PETITIONER

¶111

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶112

AND:

¶113

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX KORAMANGALA

¶114

¶115

BENGALURU – 560 034

¶116

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶117

THE SECRETARY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034

¶118

SRI S.M.MANJUNATHA S/O.MUNIYAPPA NO.02, NAGARTHAPETE SHIDLGATTA KOLAR – 562 105 … RESPONDENTS

¶119

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; R-3 IS SERVED)

¶120

¶121

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN RP.NO. 118/2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶122

IN WP.NO.12971/2021

¶123

BETWEEN:

¶124

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CENTRAL) K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER (ROUTE) … PETITIONER

¶125

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶126

AND:

¶127

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX KORAMANGALA

¶128

¶129

BENGALURU – 560 034 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶130

SMT.ARUNAKUMARI W/O.ASHOK KUMAR KUNDANAHALLI VILLAGE HORALAGERE POST MALUR TALUK KOLAR – 563 130 … RESPONDENTS

¶131

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1;

¶132

SRI M.E.NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) ***

¶133

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN RP.NO. 125/2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶134

IN WP.NO.12972/2021

¶135

BETWEEN:

¶136

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CENTRAL), K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER (ROUTE) … PETITIONER

¶137

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶138

AND:

¶139

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶140

THE SECRETARY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL)

¶141

¶142

BDA COMPLEX KORAMANGALA

¶143

BENGALURU – 560 034

¶144

SMT.HEMAVATHI W/O.R.LAKSHMINARAYANA NO.15, 6^TH CROSS LIC COLONY, 3^RD BLOCK JAYANAGAR EAST BENGALURU – 560 011 … RESPONDENTS

¶145

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI M.E.NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) ***

¶146

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN RP.NO. 106/2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶147

IN WP.NO.12973/2021

¶148

BETWEEN:

¶149

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CENTRAL), K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER (ROUTE) … PETITIONER

¶150

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶151

AND:

¶152

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶153

THE SECRETARY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL)

¶154

¶155

BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034

¶156

SMT.USHARANI

¶157

W/O.RAJAGOPALAGOWDA NO.46, 8^TH STAGE S.O.S POST BENGALURU – 560 076 …RESPONDENTS

¶158

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2) ***

¶159

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN RP.NO. 107/2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶160

IN WP.NO.12974/2021

¶161

BETWEEN:

¶162

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CENTRAL), K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER (ROUTE) … PETITIONER

¶163

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶164

AND:

¶165

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034 BY ITS SECRETARY

¶166

SRI NAZEER AHAMED

¶167

S/O.LATE SHAMSHUDDIN NO.6/1, WOOD STREET

¶168

¶169

ASHOK NAGAR

¶170

BENGALURU – 560 002 …RESPONDENTS

¶171

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1;

¶172

SRI M.E. NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) ***

¶173

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN RP.NO. 124/2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶174

IN WP.NO.12977/2021

¶175

BETWEEN:

¶176

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CENTRAL), K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER (ROUTE) … PETITIONER

¶177

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶178

AND:

¶179

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶180

RAFIULLA R-2 is deleted vide S/O.RAHAMATHULLA order dated 15.09.2021 NO.3387, 5^TH CROSS & R-3 is referred as R-2 GAYATHRINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 021

¶181

SRI HAFEEZ KHAN S/O. KARIM KHAN NO.35/36, TATA LANE RICHMOND ROAD

¶182

¶183

ASHOK NAGAR

¶184

BENGALURU – 560 025 …RESPONDENTS

¶185

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1; SRI M.E.NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) ***

¶186

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN RP.NO. 123/2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶187

IN WP.NO.13610/2021

¶188

BETWEEN:

¶189

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CENTRAL) K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER (ROUTE) … PETITIONER

¶190

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶191

AND:

¶192

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶193

SRI M.KRISHNAMURTHY

¶194

S/O.LATE MINURAO NO.05, CUBBON PETE BENGALURU – 560 002 …RESPONDENTS

¶195

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1; SRI M.E.NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶196

¶197

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

¶198

¶199

ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN RP.NO. 127/2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶200

IN WP.NO.13618/2021

¶201

BETWEEN:

¶202

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CENTRAL) K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER (ROUTE) … PETITIONER

¶203

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶204

AND:

¶205

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶206

THE SECRETARY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034

¶207

SRI SRINIVASA NAIDU S/O.NARAYANASWAMY NAIDU ANJANI BADAVANE CHINTAMANI CHIKKABALLAPURA - 563 125 … RESPONDENTS

¶208

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI B.R.SUNDARARAJA GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) ***

¶209

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN RP.NO.

¶210

¶211

110/2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶212

IN WP.NO.13687/2021

¶213

BETWEEN

¶214

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CENTRAL) K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER (ROUTE) … PETITIONER

¶215

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶216

AND:

¶217

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034

¶218

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶219

THE SECRETARY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034

¶220

SRI SYED FAYAZ AHAMED S/O.ABDUL RAZAK SAB CHINNASANDRA VILLAGE BENGALURU ROAD CHINTAMANI - 563 125 … RESPONDENTS

¶221

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; R-3 IS SERVED)

¶222

¶223

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN RP.NO.

¶224

¶225

105/2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶226

IN WP.NO.19107/2021

¶227

BETWEEN:

¶228

D.R.SRINIVASA GOWDA S/O.RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO.303, 5^TH CROSS MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036

¶229

HAFEEZ KHAN S/O.KAREEM KHAN AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS NO.35/36, TATA LANE RICHMOND ROAD ASHOKNAGAR BENGALURU - 560 025

¶230

NAZEER AHMED S/O.LATE SHAMSHUDDIN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO.6/1, WOOD STREET ASHOKANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 025

¶231

M.KRISHNAMURHTY S/O.LATE MUNIRAO AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NO.5, CUBBONPET BENGALURU - 560 002

¶232

SMT.HEMAVATHI W/O.R.LAKSHMINARAYAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS NO.15, 6^TH CROSS LIC COLONY, 3^RD BLOCK JAYANAGAR EAST BENGALURU - 560 011

¶233

¶234

R.LAKSHMIRAYAN S/O.RAMRAO AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NO.15, 6^TH CROSS LIC COLONY, 3^RD BLOCK JAYANAGAR EAST BENGALURU 560 011 … PETITIONERS

¶235

(BY SRI M.E.NAGESH, ADVOCATE)

¶236

AND:

¶237

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BENGALURU (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034

¶238

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR … RESPONDENTS

¶239

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1; SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-2) ***

¶240

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-G) PASSED IN RP.NOS.112/2019, 123/2019, 124/2019, 127/2019, 106/2019 AND 109/2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶241

IN WP.NO.20295/2021

¶242

BETWEEN

¶243

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR

¶244

¶245

BENGALURU - 560 027 BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER … PETITIONER

¶246

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶247

AND:

¶248

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BENGALURU (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 034

¶249

S.N.KONAPPA REDDY SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶250

(a) SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI W/O.LATE S.N.KONAPPA REDDY HOUSE NO.1804, ANJANI LAYOUT WARD NO.6, 1^st CROSS CHINTAMANI TOWN CHINTAMANI - 563 125

¶251

(b) KUM. ANUSHA S.K. D/O.LATE S.N.KONAPPA REDDY HOUSE NO.1804, ANJANI LAYOUT WARD NO.6, 1^st CROSS CHINTAMANI TOWN CHINTAMANI - 563 125

¶252

(c) KUM.PRATHYUSHA D/O.LATE S.N.KONAPPA REDDY HOUSE NO.1804, ANJANI LAYOUT WARD NO.6, 1^st CROSS CHINTAMANI TOWN CHINTAMANI - 563 125

¶253

(d) CHIRANJEEVI MOUNEESH S/O.LATE S.N.KONAPPA REDDY HOUSE NO.1804, ANJANI LAYOUT WARD NO.6, 1^st CROSS CHINTAMANI TOWN CHINTAMANI - 563 125

¶254

¶255

3. SREENIVASA NAIDU

¶256

S/O.NARAYANA SWAMY NAIDU AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 'ANNAPOORNESHWARI NILAYA' ANJANI EXTENSION, CHINTAMANI CHIKBALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 125

¶257

… RESPONDENTS

¶258

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1)

¶259

¶260

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN RP.NO. 108/2010 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶261

IN WP.NO.21356/2021

¶262

BETWEEN

¶263

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CENTRAL) K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER (ROUTE) … PETITIONER

¶264

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶265

AND:

¶266

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034

¶267

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶268

SMT.GAJALAKSHMI S/O.LATE C.R.NAIDU NO.1078/3, NEAR KEB SARJAPURA ROAD, ATTIBELE BENGALURU – 560 048 …RESPONDENTS

¶269

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1) ***

¶270

¶271

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN RP.NO. 132/2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶272

IN WP.NO.21609/2021

¶273

BETWEEN:

¶274

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CENTRAL) CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER (ROUTE) … PETITIONER

¶275

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶276

AND:

¶277

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶278

THE SECRETARY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034

¶279

SMT.C.PREMA W/O.A.PRAKASH NO.76, VINAYAKANAGARA HESARAGHATTA BENGALURU – 560 088 … RESPONDENTS

¶280

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2)

¶281

¶282

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

¶283

¶284

ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN RP.NO. 111/2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶285

IN WP.NO.23096/2021

¶286

BETWEEN:

¶287

B.A.MUSHEER AHAMED S/O.K.B.ANWAR BASHA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS PROP:V.M.MOTORS, NO.7/2 AZEEMA BUILDING 1^ST FLOOR KALASIPALYAM BENGALURU … PETITIONER

¶288

(BY SRI C.MOHAMMED SUBHANULLA SHARIEF, ADVOCATE)

¶289

AND:

¶290

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BENGALURU RURAL

¶291

BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034 BY ITS SECRETARY

¶292

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE KENGAL HANUMANTAIAH ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027

¶293

BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER …RESPONDENTS

¶294

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1;

¶295

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

¶296

¶297

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-D) PASSED IN RP.NO. 119/2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

IN WP.NO.89/2022

BETWEEN:

SMT.USHA RANI W/O.SRI RAJAGOPAL GOWDA S. AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.43, II CROSS, II BLOCK VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT BDA MAIN ROAD, 8^TH PHASE J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU

¶302

… PETITITONER

¶303

(BY SRI C.V.KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶304

AND

¶305

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BENGALURU (RURAL) BENGALURU BY ITS SECRETARY BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 034

¶306

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027

¶307

BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR … RESPONDENTS

¶308

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1)

¶309

¶310

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-G) PASSED IN RP.NO. 107/2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶311

IN WP.NO.2330/2022

¶312

BETWEEN:

¶313

SRI ANIL KUMAR S/O.LATE NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶314

¶315

NO.16, 1^ST CROSS, A.V.ROAD NEAR KALASIPALYAM BUS STAND BENGALURU – 560 002

¶316

SRI S.M.MANJUNATH S/O.MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NO.2, NAGARTHPET SIDLAGHATTA KOLAR – 562 105 … PETITIONERS

¶317

(BY SRI C.MOHAMMED SUBHANULLA SHARIEF, ADVOCATE)

¶318

AND:

¶319

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BENGALURU RURAL BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034 BY ITS SECRETARY

¶320

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027

¶321

BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR … RESPONDENTS

¶322

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1;

¶323

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

¶324

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-F) PASSED IN RP.NOS.104 AND 118 OF 2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶325

IN WP.NO.2855/2022

¶326

BETWEEN:

¶327

H.A.MANJUNATHA PRASANNA S/O.H.P.APPANNACHARI

¶328

¶329

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS NO.104, ‘C’ BLOCK GOLDEN STAR APARTMENT HOODI, M.D.POST BENGALURU – 560 048 … PETITIONER

¶330

(BY SRI M.E.NAGESH, ADVOCATE)

¶331

AND:

¶332

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BENGALURU (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034 BY ITS SECRETARY

¶333

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027

¶334

BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR … RESPONDENTS

¶335

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1;

¶336

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

¶337

¶338

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-H) PASSED IN RP.NO. 130/2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶339

IN WP.NO.4401/2022

¶340

BETWEEN:

¶341

SMT.ARUNA KUMARI W/O.ASHOK KUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS KUNDANAHALLI VILLAGE

¶342

HORALAGERE POST MALUR TALUK

¶343

KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130

¶344

¶345

ASHOK KUMAR S/O.MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS KUNDANAHALLI VILLAGE HORALAGERE POST MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130 … PETITIONERS

¶346

(BY SRI M.E.NAGESH, ADVOCATE)

¶347

AND:

¶348

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BENGALURU (RURAL) BDA COMPLEX KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034 BY ITS SECRETARY

¶349

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR … RESPONDENTS

¶350

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1; SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-2)

¶351

¶352

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN RP.NOS. 125 & 126 OF 2019 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶353

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶354

¶355

ORDER

¶356

In these writ petitions, one set of petitions are filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation') and the other set of petitions are filed by the holders of stage carriage permit (for short, 'the permit holders').

¶357

The Corporation and the permit holders have questioned the orders passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the tribunal') dated 19.03.2021, 07.04.2021 and 07.07.2021.

¶358

It is the case of the Corporation that it is the State Transport Undertaking established under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (analogous to Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939) deals with schemes and its effect. The State Government formulated and notified various schemes in the State of Karnataka to provide exclusive right of operation of transport service to the STU on the notified routes and/or areas within the State of Karnataka.

¶359

It is the contention of Sri Hareesh Bhandary T., learned counsel for the Corporation that as per law, no permit can be

¶360

¶361

granted to a private operator on the notified route/s or area/s. He further contends that as many as 19 schemes are formulated in different regions/areas. Despite prohibition to grant permits to the private operators under various schemes, the Regional Transport Authority (for short 'the RTA') kept on issuing the permissions/permits to the private operators detrimental to the interest of the Corporation and the law prevailing under the scheme. He also contends that the restrictions were imposed under Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the M.V.Act') in granting the permits in the notified area or the notified routes. The schemes formulated are for exclusive benefits of the Corporation.

¶362

4.1 Learned counsel contends that the Corporation preferred a revision petition under Section 90 of the M.V.Act before the tribunal against the decision of the RTA meetings held in granting the renewal of stage carriage permit to private stage carriage permit holders for various areas and the routes. It is further stated that original grant/renewal of permit was challenged by the Corporation in a revision petition before the tribunal and the tribunal has set-aside the grant of renewal of permit issued by the RTA. Against the said order of the tribunal,

¶363

¶364

the writ petitions came to be filed in WP.Nos.26492-493/2018 and this Court remanded the said matter to the RTA to decide the same by considering the Joint Route Survey.

¶365

4.2 It is the further contention of learned counsel that there was no jurisdiction for the RTA concerned to consider the application of the respective permit holders to grant renewal of permit. However, the RTA proceeded to pass an order granting renewal of permit. Aggrieved by which, the Corporation preferred a revision petition. Though the tribunal was pleased to set-aside the grant of renewal of permit issued by the RTA, but erroneously passed an order reserving liberty to the permit holders to approach the jurisdictional RTA having territorial jurisdiction to seek for fresh permit/renewal of permit. Aggrieved by this liberty granted by the tribunal, the Corporation is before this Court.

¶366

4.3 Learned counsel further contends that the order passed by the tribunal reserving liberty to file a fresh permit/renewal of permit before the competent jurisdictional RTA, is impermissible, not sustainable in law, in facts and circumstances and in all probabilities of the case. He further contends that the renewal of the application emphasises renewal by the same RTA, which

¶367

¶368

originally granted the permit. He further contends that the tribunal having held that the RTA renewing the permits had no jurisdiction, it does not have scope to mould the relief in the nature of reserving liberty to file a fresh application for renewal of permit before the jurisdictional RTA. It is his further contention that this liberty gives scope to the permit holders either to file a fresh application or renewal application before the competent Authority.

¶369

4.4 Learned counsel further contends that the tribunal has failed to notice that fresh application is a separate and distinct act, whereas the liberty reserved to the permit holders to file a fresh application for renewal of permit is as good as giving liberty to the RTA, who considered the permit for renewal, which otherwise is set-aside by the tribunal. He further contends that if the tribunal had not extended the generosity of liberty, there would not have been need for the Corporation to file this petition. The liberty to file a fresh/renewal application tantamounts to giving scope to the jurisdictional RTA to consider the renewal of permit, which is otherwise set-aside by the tribunal.

¶370

¶371

4.5 Learned counsel further contends that liberty can be given to file a fresh application before the jurisdictional RTA. However, the tribunal has failed to take into account various prohibitions made for grant of permit under various schemes, as the same is for the exclusive benefit of the Corporation and so also, Section 104 of the M.V.Act prohibits grant of permit on the scheme routes. Learned counsel also contends that Section 69 of the M.V.Act specifies the jurisdiction of the Authority, where the major portion of the route traverses. It is his vehement contention that a permit which is impermissible in law and if granted is a dead wood, which cannot be revived at the instance of the permit holders when the law does not provide for it. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks to allow the petitions and to set-aside the order passed by the tribunal granting liberty to the permit holders to file a fresh application/renewal of permit.

¶372

4.6 Learned counsel has relied on the following decisions in

¶373

support of his case:

¶374

1. Anjanappa vs. Regional Transport Authority and another [WA.Nos.1709-1711/2010, Decided on 30.11.2010];

¶375

¶376

2. Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore v. P.V.Motor Service, Mangalore and others reported in AIR 1971 MYSORE 358;

¶377

3. Sri V.Gopi v. Regional Transport Authority and others [WA.NO.1783/2006 (MV), Decided on 04.01.2007];

¶378

4. M/s.Venkateshwara Travels v. The Regional Transport Authority [WP.NO.49230/2017 (MV), Decided on 18.09.2018];

¶379

5. Smt.Aruna Kumari v. The Regional Transport Authority (RTA) and another [WP.No.45533/2018 (MV), Decided on 09.04.2019];

¶380

6. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal reported in ILR 1994 KAR 1697;

¶381

7. Sulochana Damodhar & etc. v. The State Transport Authority, Karnataka & Ors. etc. reported in 2009(2) AIR Kant HCR 506;

¶382

8. D.Papiah vs. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ors. reported in AIR 1976 SC 1731;

¶383

9. T.Narayanaswamy vs. Regional Transport Authority and Ors. reported in AIR 1971 KANT. 276;

¶384

¶385

10. Benny Mathew vs. Alexander Joseph reported in ILR

¶386

2003(1) KERALA 39;

¶387

11. Smt.Girijamma v. The Regional Transport Authority and another [WP.NO.36072/2009, Decided on

¶388

01.07.2010];

¶389

12. APSRTC, Mushirabad, Hyd. vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyd. and Ors. [WA.NOS.1521 AND 1529 OF 2001, Decided on 16.10.2001].

¶390

Per contra , Sri B.R.Sundararaja Gupta, Sri M.E.Nagesh, Sri C.V.Kumar and Sri C.Mohammed Subhanalla Shariff, learned counsel for the permit holders vehemently contend as under:

¶391

Sri B.R.Sundararaja Gupta, learned counsel vehemently contends that the tribunal setting aside the grant of renewal of permit is manifestly illegal, unjust, arbitrary and perverse. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed. He further contends that the tribunal has failed to take into consideration Rule 76 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, 'the KMV Rules') regarding renewal of permit in question and in the light of the law laid-down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case

¶392

of M/s.Prakash Travels Pvt. Ltd. Gandhinagar, Bangalore

¶393

¶394

v. State reported in AIR 1973 MYSORE 71 , which is subsequently followed by this Court in the case of Sri.A.V.C.Veerabhadrappa v. The Regional Transport Authority and another [WP.NO.36311/2011 (MV) DD.28.09.2011] and also in the case of Smt.D.Vijayalakshmamma and another v. Regional Transport Authority and another [WP.NOS.3722637227/2011 (MV) 28.09.2011] , the RTA has the jurisdiction to consider renewal application. He further contends that by taking note of the statutory provisions and the orders made by this Court, the RTA has renewed the permits in question. Non consideration of the above and setting aside the renewal relying upon the decision is not applicable to the present facts of the case, which is a manifest illegality committed by the tribunal occasioning failure of justice. Accordingly, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.

¶395

5.1 Learned counsel further contends that the tribunal has

¶396

not considered the distinction between grant of permit and renewal of permit. In relation to the renewal of permit and the identical question already having been examined by this Court in the context of Rule 76 of the KMV Rules, the RTA has rightly

¶397

¶398

renewed the permit in question, which requires to be appreciated. However, the same has not been done by the tribunal and on the contrary, has set-aside the order of the RTA, thereby prima facie , the impugned orders are illegal, perverse and the same deserves to be quashed.

¶399

5.2 Learned counsel further contends that on 07.12.2010, the RTA directed some of the permit holders to approach the concerned jurisdictional RTA namely, RTA, Bengaluru Urban for consideration of renewal application even though the permits were granted by the RTA, Bengaluru Rural. This aspect of the matter was challenged before this Court in WP.No.36311/2011 and vide order dated 28.09.2011, by taking into consideration the decision rendered in the case of M/s.Prakash Travels Pvt. Ltd. (supra) , this Court quashed the said direction and directed the RTA, Bengaluru Rural which had granted permit to consider the renewal application and dispose of the same in accordance with law by permitting the permit holders to operate the services. It is also contended by learned counsel that Rule 76 of the KMV Rules has not been questioned by anybody and taking note of the decision in the case of M/s.Prakash Travels Pvt.

¶400

Ltd. (supra) , the RTA has renewed the permits in question.

¶401

¶402

5.3 Learned counsel further contends that the tribunal instead of following the decisions rendered in M/s.Prakash Travels Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and in the case of Anjanappa vs. Regional Transport Authority and another [WA.Nos.17091711/2010, Decided on 30.11.2010] , has passed the impugned orders setting aside the renewal of permits, which is illegal and contrary to the orders passed by this Court. He also contends that the writ petitions are filed questioning the ground of jurisdiction, whereas all other aspects are not in dispute. Under these circumstances, he contends that grant of permit and renewal of permit are two different aspects, which has not been considered by the tribunal and the same has rendered miscarriage of justice to the permit holders. Accordingly, he seeks to allow his petitions and consequently, quash the impugned orders passed by the tribunal.

¶403

5.4 Sri M.E.Nagesh, learned counsel, who also appears for the permit holders vehemently contends that the tribunal has committed a gross error in passing the impugned orders without taking into consideration the orders of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.Prakash Travels Pvt. Ltd. (supra) . Further, he contends that the tribunal has committed an error in

¶404

¶405

going into the aspect of not following the correct route which has already been considered by the RTA at the time of grant of permit initially. Hence, it is only the original RTA which could renew the permit and go into these aspects of the correctness or otherwise of the route.

¶406

5.5 Learned counsel further contends that in view of amendment to Rule 66 of the KMV Rules, the contentions raised by the Corporation would not stand the test of law. Rule 66 of the KMV Rules is amended as per notification No.SARIE 211 SAEPA 2016 dated 27.07.2018. He further contends that in view of the amendment to Rule 66 of the KMV Rules, the permit granted by one authority shall also be valid in other authority. Therefore, when there is an amendment to Rule 66 of the KMV Rules, the same would override the restriction of Section 69(1) of the M.V.Act. Therefore, it is his contention that the RTA is competent to renew the permit irrespective of the jurisdictional issue.

¶407

5.6 Learned counsel further contends that the grant was made by the RTA, Bengaluru (Rural) only. After bifurcation of the Districts, there is no substantial injustice caused to the Corporation by the grant of renewal in favour of the permit

¶408

¶409

holders. The tribunal while passing the impugned orders has considered the only point of territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the tribunal has not set-aside the renewal order per se but has passed the order only on the issue of territorial jurisdiction.

¶410

5.7 It is the contention of learned counsel that the tribunal has committed an error in not taking into consideration the effect of Section 81 of the M.V.Act, which speaks about the major portion of renewal of permits. He also contends that once the initial permit has been granted, it would have to be presumed that the application was filed before the correct authority which granted the permit and which has considered all necessary requirement for grant of permit and accordingly, the RTA has rightly granted the permit. He further contends that the tribunal ought to have considered this aspect of the matter of jurisdictional issue rather than rejecting the petitions of the permit holders on the question of jurisdiction.

¶411

5.8 Learned counsel further contends that Section 69 of the M.V.Act is not applicable to renewals. Section 69 of the M.V.Act deals with filing of fresh application for grant of permits to the RTA and it is not for renewal of application. He also contends that Section 69(1) of the M.V.Act is not absolute by

¶412

¶413

itself for the simple reason that Section 69(2) of the M.V.Act empowers the State Government by way of notification to prescribe the jurisdiction of the authority even for grant of permit without reference to the area of jurisdiction. Learned counsel further contends that the State Government has got the powers to make rules under Section 69 of the M.V.Act and accordingly, Rule 66 of the KMV Rules has been amended and has come into force from 27.07.2018. Therefore, he contends that the amendment to Rule 66 of the KMV Rules overrides the restriction imposed under Section 69(1) of the M.V.Act. Therefore, the RTA is well within its competence to renew the permit irrespective of the jurisdictional issue.

¶414

5.9 Learned counsel further contends that the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the Corporation is pertaining to grant of permission and so also, the Division bench of this Court has not considered the issue of grant of renewal of permit. The decision rendered in the case of M/s.Prakash Travels Pvt. Ltd. (supra) applies to renewal of permit and hence, the same would hold good as against the decision rendered in W.A.Nos.1709-1711/2010. It is further contended by learned counsel that all the judgments relied on by the learned counsel

¶415

¶416

for the Corporation are all prior to amendment to the KMV Rules, more specifically, Rule 66 of the KMV Rules, which is made specifically applicable to renewals. The RTA has taken note of the amendment to Rule 66 of the KMV Rules while renewing the permits, which has not been challenged by the Corporation on the point of issue of jurisdiction.

¶417

5.10 Learned counsel further contends that the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in several decisions have held that the renewal of permit is to be considered as fresh permit and hence, the logic cannot be applied to renewal of permit on the ground of jurisdiction issue. The tribunal has not considered these aspects of the matter while passing the impugned orders and setting aside of renewal, which is contrary to law, illegal and arbitrary and hence, the same would have to be quashed affirming the order of the RTA.

¶418

5.11 Sri C.V.Kumar, learned counsel, who also appears for the permit holders vehemently contends that the impugned orders passed by the tribunal is erroneous without jurisdiction and the same is contrary to the M.V.Act as well as KMV Rules. He further contends that the tribunal has not appreciated the fact that the grant of permit by the RTA has not been questioned and

¶419

¶420

the same has attained finality and at the time when the permit was granted, the District namely, Chikkaballapura was not in existence and the District was formed in the year 2007. Therefore, the subsequent creation of the District would not permit the grant to the permit holders by the RTA to be without jurisdiction. He also contends that the RTA which granted the permit had the jurisdiction and after considering all the necessary requirements and on the permit holders fulfilling the same, the permit was granted and the competent authority has renewed the said permit, which cannot said to be bad in law. It is also relevant to note that nobody has questioned the grant of permit including the Corporation.

¶421

5.12 Learned counsel supports the arguments of his counter-part (permit holders) that the decision in M/s.Prakash Travels Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has not been followed by the tribunal while rendering the impugned orders and so also, the cases of Smt.D.Vijayalakshmamma and Sri.A.V.C.Veerabhadrappa

¶422

(supra) . He also contends that the tribunal has not taken into consideration the creation of a new District subsequent to the grant of permit would not render the permit invalid merely because of creation of a new RTA in the new District. Therefore,

¶423

¶424

on these grounds, he contends that the impugned orders passed by the tribunal is illegal and arbitrary and the same requires to be quashed.

¶425

5.13 Sri C.Mohammed Subhanalla Shariff, learned counsel, who also appears for the permit holders vehemently contends that the impugned orders passed by the tribunal is illegal, arbitrary and the same requires to be quashed. While supporting the arguments addressed by his counter-part (permit holders), he contends that the tribunal has failed to take into consideration Rule 76 of the KMV Rules regarding renewal of permit and also law laid down by this Court in the case of M/s.Prakash Travels Pvt. Ltd. (supra) subsequently followed in the cases of Smt.D.Vijayalakshmamma and Sri.A.V.C.Veerabhadrappa (supra) . He also contends that the tribunal has failed to make a distinction between grant of permit and renewal of permit which has already been considered by this Court in the light of Rule 76 of KMV Rules. Therefore, the order passed by the tribunal is contrary to the decisions rendered by this Court. Accordingly, he seeks to allow his petitions and consequently, quash the orders passed by the tribunal.

¶426

¶427

5.14 Sri Ramesh Jois, learned Additional Government Advocate for the RTA sustains the impugned orders passed by the tribunal.

¶428

Having heard the learned counsel for the Corporation, learned counsel for the permit holders and learned Additional Government Advocate, it is necessary to understand the crux of the matter and the grievance in these batch of matters.

¶429

In these batch of writ petitions, the permit holders had applied for grant of stage carriage permit which was initially granted and thereafter, they have applied for renewal of permit under Section 81 of the M.V.Act before the RTA. During the pendency of the application for renewal, some of the permit holders applied for grant of temporary permit under Section 87(1)(d) of the M.V.Act which was granted as a temporary permit.

¶430

The renewal of permit was questioned by the Corporation and the private parties before the tribunal and the tribunal relying upon the decision made in WP.Nos.1709217211/2010 dated 30.11.2010 set aside the renewal of permit in question and liberty was reserved to approach the competent

¶431

¶432

authority seeking renewal of permit and it is this order of setting aside the renewal of permit, which is questioned by the permit holders as being bad in law.

¶433

The Corporation, on the other hand, being aggrieved by the order of the tribunal to the limited extent of 'liberty being reserved to the permit holders to file a fresh permit/renewal of their permit before the competent/appropriate authority having jurisdiction', has preferred these writ petitions. The tribunal though set aside the order of the RTA for grant of renewal to the permit holders, provided liberty to them to approach the jurisdictional authority for consideration of their application for grant of permit/renewal, which is questioned by the Corporation in the writ petitions filed by them.

¶434

Chapter-V of the M.V.Act deals with control of transport vehicles, in which the permits are granted to the permit holders.

¶435

Section 66(1) of the M.V.Act deals with necessity for permits, which reads as under:

¶436

"66. Necessity for permits.─(1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place

¶437

¶438

whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used:

¶439

Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage:

¶440

Provided further that a stage carriage permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage either when carrying passengers or not:

¶441

Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him.

¶442

Provided also that where a transport vehicle has been issued any permit or permits, as well as a licence under this Act, such vehicle may be used either under the permit, or permits, so issued to it, or under such licence, at the discretion of the vehicle owner."

¶443

¶444

Section 69 of the M.V.Act deals with general provision as to applications for permits, which reads as under:

¶445

"69. General provision as to applications for permits.─(1) Every application for a permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles:

¶446

Provided that if it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles in two or more regions lying within the same State, the application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies, and in case the portion of the proposed route or area in each of the regions is approximately equal, to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles:

¶447

Provided further that if it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles in two or more regions lying in different States, the application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the applicant resides or has his principal place of business.

¶448

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that in the case of any vehicle or vehicles proposed to be used in two or more regions lying in different States, the

¶449

¶450

application under that sub-section shall be made to the State Transport Authority of the region in which the applicant resides or has his principal place of business."

¶451

In these batch of writ petitions, the permit holders are concerned with stage carriage permit. Section 72 of the M.V.Act deals with grant of stage carriage permits, which reads as under:

¶452

"72. Grant of stage carriage permits.─(1) Subject to the provisions of section 71, a Regional Transport Authority may, on an application made to it under section 70, grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit:

¶453

Provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the application.

¶454

(2) The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified description and may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely:─

¶455

(i) that the vehicles shall be used only in a specified area, or on a specified route or routes;

¶456

¶457

(ii) that the operation of the stage carriage shall be commenced with effect from a specified date;

¶458

(iii) the minimum and maximum number of daily trips to be provided in relation to any route or area generally or on specified days and occasions;

¶459

(iv) that copies of the time-table of the stage carriage approved by the Regional Transport Authority shall be exhibited on the vehicles and at specified stands and halts on the route or within the area;

¶460

(v) that the stage carriage shall be operated within such margins of deviation from the approved time-table as the Regional Transport Authority may from time to time specify;

¶461

(vi) that within municipal limits and such other areas and places as may be prescribed, passengers or goods shall not be taken up or set down except at specified points;

¶462

(vii) the maximum number of passengers and the maximum weight of luggage that may be carried on the stage carriage, either generally or on specified occasions or at specified times and seasons;

¶463

(viii) the weight and nature of passengers' luggage that shall be carried free of

¶464

¶465

charge, the total weight of luggage that may be carried in relation to each passenger, and the arrangements that shall be made for the carriage of luggage without causing inconvenience to passengers;

¶466

(ix) the rate of charge that may be levied for passengers' luggage in excess of the free allowance;

¶467

(x) that vehicles of a specified type fitted with body conforming to approved specifications shall be used:

¶468

Provided that the attachment of this condition to a permit shall not prevent the continued use, for a period of two years from the date of publication of the approved specifications, of any vehicle operating on that date;

¶469

(xi) that specified standards of comfort and cleanliness shall be maintained in the vehicles;

¶470

(xii) the conditions subject to which goods may be carried in the stage carriage in addition to or to the exclusion of passengers;

¶471

(xiii) that fares shall be charged in accordance with the approved fare table;

¶472

(xiv) that a copy of, or extract from, the fare table approved by the Regional Transport

¶473

¶474

Authority and particulars of any special fares or rates of fares so approved for particular occasions shall be exhibited on the stage carriage and at specified stands and halts;

¶475

(xv) that tickets bearing specified particulars shall be issued to passengers and shall show the fares actually charged and that records of tickets issued shall be kept in a specified manner;

¶476

(xvi) that mails shall be carried on the vehicle subject to such conditions (including conditions as to the time in which mails are to be carried and the charges which may be levied) as may be specified;

¶477

(xvii) the vehicles to be kept as reserve by the holder of the permit to maintain the operation and to provide for special occasions;

¶478

(xviii) the conditions subject to which the vehicle may be used as a contract carriage;

¶479

(xix) that specified arrangements shall be made for the housing, maintenance and repair of vehicle;

¶480

(xx) that any specified bus station or shelter maintained by Government or a local authority shall be used and that any

¶481

¶482

specified rent or fee shall be paid for such use;

¶483

(xxi) that the conditions of the permit shall not be departed from, save with the approval of the Regional Transport Authority;

¶484

(xxii) that the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not less than one month,—

¶485

(a) vary the conditions of the permit;

¶486

(b) attach to the permit further conditions:

¶487

Provided that the conditions specified in pursuance of clause (i) shall not be varied so as to alter the distance covered by the original route by more than 24 kilometres, and any variation within such limits shall be made only after the Regional Transport Authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or any part thereof;

¶488

(xxiii) that the holder of a permit shall furnish to the Regional Transport Authority such periodical returns, statistics and other information as the State Government may from time to time prescribe;

¶489

¶490

(xxiv) any other conditions which may be prescribed.

¶491

Provided that the Regional Transport Authority may waive any such condition for a stage carriage permit operating in a rural area, as it deems fit."

¶492

Section 80 of the M.V.Act deals with the procedure in applying and for granting permits, which reads as under:

¶493

"80. Procedure in applying for and granting permits.—(1) An application for a permit of any kind may be made at any time.

¶494

(2) A Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 66 shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under this Act:

¶495

Provided that the Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 66 may summarily refuse the application if the grant of any permit in accordance with the application would have the effect of increasing the number of stage carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 71 or of contract carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 74:

¶496

¶497

Provided further that where a Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 66 refuses an application for the grant of a permit of any kind under this Act, it shall give to the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal of the same and an opportunity of being heard in the matter.

¶498

(3) An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, or in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit:

¶499

Provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat an application made by the holder of stage carriage permit who provides the only service on any route to increase the frequency of the service so provided without any increase in the number of vehicles:

¶500

Provided further that,—

¶501

(i) in the case of variation, the termini shall not be altered and the distance

¶502

¶503

covered by the variation shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres;

¶504

(ii) in the case of extension, the distance covered by extension shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres from the termini,

¶505

and any such variation or extension within such limits shall be made only after the transport authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof.

¶506

(4) A Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 66 may, before such date as may be specified by it in this behalf, replace any permit granted by it before the said date by a fresh permit conforming to the provisions of section 72 or section 74 or section 76 or section 79, as the case may be, and the fresh permit shall be valid for the same route or routes or the same area for which the replaced permit was valid:

¶507

Provided that no condition other than a condition which was already attached to the replaced permit or which could have been attached thereto under the law in force when that permit was granted

¶508

¶509

shall be attached to the fresh permit except with the consent in writing of the holder of the permit.

¶510

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 81, a permit issued under the provisions of sub-section (4) shall be effective without renewal for the remainder of the period during which the replaced permit would have been so effective."

¶511

Section 81 of the M.V.Act deals with duration and renewal

¶512

of permits, which reads as under:

¶513

"81. Duration and renewal of permits.—(1) A permit other than a temporary permit issued under section 87 or a special permit issued under subsection (8) of section 88 shall be effective from the date of issuance or renewal thereof for a period of five years:

¶514

Provided that where the permit is countersigned under sub-section (1) of section 88, such counter-signature shall remain effective without renewal for such period so as to synchronise with the validity of the primary permit.

¶515

(2) A permit may be renewed on an application made not less than fifteen days before the date of its expiry.

¶516

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2), the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as the case may be, may entertain an application for the renewal of a permit

¶517

¶518

after the last date specified in that sub-section if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified.

¶519

(4) The Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as the case may be, may reject an application for the renewal of a permit on one or more of the following grounds, namely:—

¶520

(a) the financial condition of the applicant as evidenced by insolvency, or decrees for payment of debts remaining unsatisfied for a period of thirty days, prior to the date of consideration of the application;

¶521

(b) the applicant had been punished twice or more for any of the following offences within twelve months reckoned from fifteen days prior to the date of consideration of the application committed as a result of the operation of a stage carriage service by the applicant, namely:—

¶522

(i) plying any vehicle—

¶523

(1) without payment of tax due on such vehicle;

¶524

(2) without payment of tax during the grace period allowed for

¶525

¶526

payment of such tax and then

¶527

stop the plying of such vehicle;

¶528

(3) on any unauthorised route;

¶529

(ii) making unauthorised trips:

¶530

Provided that in computing the number of punishments for the purpose of clause (b), any punishment stayed by the order of an appellate authority shall not be taken into account:

¶531

Provided further that no application under this sub-section shall be rejected unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the applicant.

¶532

(5) Where a permit has been renewed under this section after the expiry of the period thereof, such renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry irrespective of whether or not a temporary permit has been granted under clause (d) of Section 87, and where a temporary permit has been granted, the fee paid in respect of such temporary permit shall be refunded."

¶533

Section 87 of the M.V.Act deals with temporary permits,

¶534

which reads as under:

¶535

"87. Temporary permits.—(1) A Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority may without following the procedure laid down in Section 80, grant permits, to be effective for a limited period which shall, not in any case exceed

¶536

¶537

four months, to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily—

¶538

(a) for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings, or

¶539

(b) for the purposes of a seasonal business, or

¶540

(c) to meet a particular temporary need, or

¶541

(d) pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit,

¶542

and may attach to any such permit such condition as it may think fit:

¶543

Provided that a Regional Transport Authority or, as the case may be, State Transport Authority may, in the case of goods carriages, under the circumstances of an exceptional nature, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, grant a permit for a period exceeding four months, but not exceeding one year.

¶544

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), a temporary permit may be granted thereunder in respect of any route or area where—

¶545

(i) no permit could be issued under section 72 or section 74 or section 76 or section 79 in respect of that route or area by reason of an order of a court or other competent authority restraining the issue of the same, for a period not exceeding the period for

¶546

¶547

which the issue of the permit has been so restrained; or

¶548

(ii) as a result of the suspension by a court or other competent authority of the permit of any vehicle in respect of that route or area, there is no transport vehicle of the same class with a valid permit in respect of that route or area, or there is no adequate number of such vehicles in respect of that route or area, for a period not exceeding the period of such suspension.

¶549

Provided that the number of transport vehicles in respect of which temporary permits are so granted shall not exceed the number of vehicles in respect of which the issue of the permits have been restrained or, as the case may be, the permit has been suspended."

¶550

The permit holders admittedly possessed the permit, which was granted earlier and in view of the expiry of the permit, they had applied for renewal of the same before the RTA, which granted the permit. The Corporation challenged the same before the tribunal, wherein the tribunal reserved the liberty to the permit holders to approach the jurisdictional RTA to apply for the grant of permit and renewal.

¶551

¶552

In the case of M/s.Prakash Travels Pvt. Ltd. (supra) , a similar situation arose before this Court wherein the question of application for renewal whether to be made before the same RTA or any other authority and its consequences were discussed and deliberated. It was held in para-5 of the said judgment that -

¶553

"5. xxxxxxxxxxxx When the Regional Transport Authority, Bengaluru entertained the petitioner's applications and issued permits, it must be deemed to have decided that it is the competent authority to grant the permits. In view of the language used by Rule 128, the applications for renewal of permits can only be made to the Transport Authority by which the permit was issued and not to any other authority. In view of that clear provision the petitioner cannot make the renewal applications to any other regional transport authority. If the view taken by respondents 2 and 3 and supported by the learned Government Pleader is accepted, the petitioner will not be entitled to make any application for renewal at all before any authority with the result that it has to make a fresh application for a permit. The Regional Transport Authority is an authority with limited jurisdiction functioning within the powers limited by the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. When Rule 128 expressly provides

¶554

¶555

that application for renewal of permit shall be made to Regional Transport Authority by which the permit was issued, all that the Regional Transport Authority has to satisfy itself is as to whether the original permit sought to be renewed was issued by that authority. It is not competent for the Regional Transport Authority which granted the original permit to return or reject the application for renewal on the ground that the original permit was not granted by the appropriate Regional Transport Authority. In our judgment, that question is one that does not arise for decision at the stage of renewal of permit."

¶556

It also held at para-6 of the said judgment that -

¶557

"6. The provisions of sub-sec. (2) of Section 58 to the effect that a renewal application should be considered as an original application for a permit, has to be read with provisions of Rule 128 of the Rules. So far as the forum to which the application for renewal to be made that is determined by Rule 128."

¶558

On the basis of the above, the writ petitions came to be allowed and the orders of the RTA came to be set aside. The petitioner's application for renewal was ordered to be disposed of in accordance with law on the ground that the same could have been returned for presentation before the proper RTA.

¶559

¶560

At this stage, it is relevant to extract the provisions of the KMV Rules.

¶561

Rule 66 of the KMV Rules deals with extension of area or validity of permit, which reads as under:

¶562

"66. Extension of area or validity of permit.─ (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 88, a Transport Authority which issues a permit (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regional Transport Authority’), in Form KMV-36(B), KMV-41, KMV-42 and a permit in Form KMV-45 may extend the effect of the permit to any other region within the State and may attach conditions to the permit with effect to such other region and may vary the conditions of the permit in different region.

¶563

(2) The Regional Transport Authority may issue permit or renew the permits already issued having validity in any other region in accordance with any general or special resolution recorded by any other Transport Authority and any permit so issued or renewed shall be of like effect in the region of the other Transport Authority, as if they were issued by that Transport Authority.

¶564

(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), the original Transport Authority may issue a contract carriage permit to be operative in another region or regions if it attaches a condition to the permit to the effect that the vehicle or vehicles shall only be used

¶565

¶566

beyond the region of the Regional Transport Authority under contract for a return journey commencing and ending within the region of Regional Transport Authority and shall not be offered for hire outside that region.

¶567

(4) The Regional Transport Authority which issues a permit to be operative in any other region shall send a copy of the permit to the authority of the other region:

¶568

Provided that, if the neighbouring Regional Transport Authorities have not communicated their concurrence for plying of stage carriage in their regions within thirty days from the date of application with copy of the proceedings issuing permits or renewals thereof by the primary authority as required under this sub-rule, it shall be deemed that they have accorded concurrence to this effect. (5) Nothing in this rule shall affect the right of the holder of any permit to apply to any Regional Transport Authority for counter-signature of a permit.

¶569

(6)Where the State has entered to reciprocal arrangements with any other State, the Regional Transport Authority shall not grant any special permit valid in any part of that other State in accordance with sub-section (8) of Section 88 except in conformity with the terms of the reciprocal arrangement.

¶570

¶571

(7) A special permit granted by a Regional Transport Authority of another State in accordance with the sub-section (8) of Section 88 shall, unless the reciprocal arrangement between the two States provides otherwise, be valid without countersignature subject to the following conditions, namely,─

¶572

(i) the tax payable to the State according to the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 is paid in advance;

¶573

(ii) the period of validity of a special permit in the State shall not exceed a period of three months:

¶574

Provided that the Regional Transport Authority in whose jurisdiction the vehicle enters, may extend the validity of the special permit for a period not exceeding one month.

¶575

(8) A permit granted in another State shall be valid in this State without counter-signature.─

¶576

(a) if the vehicle in respect of which such permit may have been granted is used on a route the terminal points of which are situated in such other State and which passes over a distance of not more than 16 kilometers in this State; and

¶577

(b) if such other State also extends similar facility to the holders of permits granted in this State.

¶578

¶579

(9) Every application for the grant of an interState permit of any kind shall be made to the State Transport Authority and shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed.

¶580

(10) On receipt of an application under subrule (9), the State Transport Authority shall follow the same procedure in considering the application as is prescribed for considering an application for the grant of an inter-State permit under the Act and the rules, and may grant the permit in the relevant Form.

¶581

(11) Where a permit is granted under sub-rule (10), the State Transport Authority shall forward to every other State Transport Authority the information relating to.─

¶582

(i) the number of the permit and the registration mark and other particulars of the vehicle necessary for the purpose of its identification;

¶583

(ii) the suspension or cancellation, if any, of the permit; and

¶584

(iii) the grant of stay, if any, where on appeal or revision a stay has been granted, and when the appeal or revision is finally decided, such decision.

¶585

(12) The State Transport Authority shall also forward to every other State Transport Authority, at intervals of not more than three months, a

¶586

¶587

statement giving information in regard to the numbers of the permit and the dates of expiry of such permits.

¶588

(13) Every application for the grant of a National Permit in respect of a goods carriage shall be made to the [x x x x x] the Regional Transport Authority concerned and shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees five hundred.

¶589

(14) On receipt of an application under subrule (13), the [x x x x x] the Regional Transport Authority concerned shall follow the same procedure in considering the application as is prescribed for considering an application for the grant of a goods carriage permit under the Act and the rules, and may grant the permit Form KMV 50."

¶590

Rule 76 of the KMV Rules deals with renewal of permits, which reads as under:

¶591

"76. Renewal of permits.─(1) An application for the renewal of permit shall be made in [Form KMV 36] to the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, by which the permit was issued and shall be accompanied by the permit. The application shall state the period for which the renewal is desired and shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed.

¶592

¶593

(2) The Regional Transport Authority renewing a permit shall endorse permit accordingly and shall return to the holder."

¶594

Rule 77 of the KMV Rules deals with renewal of countersignature of permits, which reads as under:

¶595

"77. Renewal of counter-signature of permits.─(1) Subject to the provisions of Rule 70, an application for the renewal of a counter-signature on a permit shall be made in writing to the State Transport Authority concerned and shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule(2), he accompanied by the permit. The application shall set forth the period for which the renewal of the counter-signature is required.

¶596

(2) If at the time of application or renewal of a counter-signature on a permit, the permit is not available being under renewal by the authority by which it was issued, the application shall state fact and shall state the number and date of the permit, the name of the authority by which it was granted, the date of its expiry and the number and the date of the counter-signature to be renewed.

¶597

(3) The Regional Transport Authority granting the renewal of a counter-signature shall call upon the holder to produce the permit, if it has not been

¶598

¶599

produced and shall endorse the permit accordingly and return the same to the holder."

¶600

In most of the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the Corporation, it pertains to the renewal of permit, which requires to be treated as a grant of fresh permit, which the same authority granted the permit. All these judgments including the case of M/s.Prakash Travels Pvt. Ltd. (supra) are prior to the advent of the KMV Rules, 1989. The ratio that was upheld by the Courts including the Hon'ble Apex Court was that the renewal of permit is as good as a fresh permit and the renewal application has to be made before the same authority, which granted the permit. In the case of Gajraj Singh v. State

¶601

Transport Appellate Tribunal reported in (1997)1 SCC 650 at para-38, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

¶602

"38. It is settled law that grant of renewal is a fresh grant though it breathes life into the operation of the previous lease or licence granted as per existing appropriate provisions of the Act, rules or orders or acts intra vires or as per the law in operation as on the date of renewal. The right to get renewal of a permit under the Act is not a vested right but a privilege subject to fulfilment of the conditions precedent enumerated under the Act.

¶603

¶604

Under Section 58 of the Repealed Act, renewal of a permit is a preferential right and refusal thereof is an exception. But the Act expresses different intention. Sections 66, 70, 71 and 80 prescribe procedure for making application and compliance of the conditions mentioned therein. Existence of the provisions of the Act consistent with the Repealed Act is a precondition. Grant of renewal under Section 81 is a discretion given to the authority (STA or RTA) subject to the conditions and the requirement of law. Discretion given by a statute connotes making a choice between competing considerations according to rules of reason and justice and not arbitrary or whim but legal and regular. Sections 70 and 71 read with Section 81 do indicate that grant of permit or renewal thereof is not a matter of right or course. It is subject of rejection for reasons to be recorded in support thereof. Therefore, right to renewal of a permit under Section 81 is not a vested or accrued right but a privilege to get renewal according to law in operation and after compliance with the preconditions and abiding the law."

¶605

In the case of Sher Singh v. Union of India reported in

¶606

(1984)1 SCC 107 at para-10, after extracting Section 58(2), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that -

¶607

"10. xxxxxxxxxx When a statute prescribes that an application for renewal of a permit shall be

¶608

¶609

made and disposed of as it were in application for a permit, the Legislature incorporated by pen and ink all those provisions which are applicable for grant of a permit upon a fresh application made in this behalf. If an application for renewal of permit was to be treated differently from the application for a permit made under Section 45 and processed under Section 47 and other connected provisions, it was absolutely unnecessary for the Legislature to provide that an application for renewal of a permit shall be made and disposed of as if it were an application for a fresh permit. The expression 'as if' is used to make one applicable in respect of other. Therefore, the expression 'as if' used in Section 58(2) would mean and imply that the application for renewal must be made in the same manner and to same extent as an application for a fresh permit and must be processed as such. This would mean that even where an existing permit holder applies for a renewal of his permit, it has to be advertised and fresh applicants can as well apply for a permit to ply vehicles on the same route for which the previous holder of permit has applied for renewal of his permit. After considering all such applications, other conditions being equal, an existing operator who was applied for renewal will have preference. Therefore, by necessary interpretation, Section 47(1-H) would also come into play when an application is for renewal of

¶610

¶611

a permit on an inter-State route. There is no conflict between Section 47(1-H) and Section 58(2). It is therefore, not possible to accept the submission that while considering the application for renewal of a permit, Section 47(1-H) is not attracted."

¶612

Admittedly, in all these cases, the question i.e. involved as stated earlier for the sake of repetition is that the permit holders' application for renewal was granted by the RTA and the same being questioned by the Corporation came to be allowed by the tribunal setting aside the renewal of permit in few cases and in few cases, the liberty was granted by the tribunal to file fresh permit/renewal before the competent/appropriate authority having territorial jurisdiction, is the crux of the matter. The contentions of learned counsel for the Corporation is that the permit for renewal is as good as fresh permit and the same is required to be treated and considered as a fresh permit for all purposes of fulfilling the statutory and other requirements. Secondly, renewal has to be filed before the same authority, which granted the initial permit and in case, there are more than one route, the application for permit and renewal would have to be filed within the jurisdiction of the RTA, in which major portion of the routes are located.

¶613

¶614

The reliances placed on by learned counsel for the Corporation and learned counsel for the permit holders are not disputed and the same is not questioned either.

¶615

On perusal of the impugned orders passed by the tribunal and the judgments relied on by learned counsel for both the parties, it is apparently seen that the application for grant of renewal of permit though it is worded as 'renewal', it is as good as applying and grant of fresh permit as held by the full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gajraj Singh (supra) . In the present case on hand also, the permit holders were already issued the permit earlier and filed application for renewal of permit, which in the words of the Hon'ble Apex Court would not be a vested right, but a privilege subject to the fulfillment of the conditions precedent enumerated under the Act, so also, it is a preferential right and the refusal or rejection of the same is an exception. Further, in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. vs. Nirmalaben S. Mehta & Anr. reported in (2016)9 SCC 240 , the Hon'ble Apex Court relied on the judgment in the case of Gajraj Singh (supra) and held at para-20, which reads as under:

¶616

"20. With regard to the renewal of the lease, it was contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the

¶617

¶618

High Court has erred in concluding that a renewal of lease is not a fresh grant and thus, at the time of renewal of lease the appellant State cannot impose conditions, inter alia, of setting up of a captive plant. In this regard it was submitted by him that it is wellsettled position of law that a renewal of a lease is akin to a fresh grant and hence, in the absence of either lease deed or the Rules providing that renewal shall be granted on the same terms and conditions as the original grant, a renewal is governed by the law/conditions in force at the time of grant of renewal of the lease of the mining area in question. Therefore, in the case at hand, the appellant State, at the time of grant of renewal of lease, can impose such condition/conditions, inter alia, of setting up of a captive plant. With regard to the aforesaid legal submissions he has placed strong reliance upon the decision of this Court in Gajraj Singh v. STAT [Gajraj Singh v. STAT, (1997)1 SCC 650]."

¶619

Now, coming to the aspect of the Rules prescribed by

¶620

the KMV Rules, Rule 66 as already extracted hereinabove, more specifically sub-rule(4), which as already stated above, imposes an affirmative condition on behalf of the RTA that it 'shall send a copy of the permit to the authority of the other region'. Further, the proviso to sub-rule(4) goes one step further by saying that-

¶621

¶622

"Provided that, if the neighbouring Regional Transport Authorities have not communicated their concurrence for plying of stage carriage in their regions within thirty days from the date of application with copy of the proceedings issuing permits or renewals thereof by the primary authority as required under this sub-rule, it shall be deemed that they have accorded concurrence to this effect."

¶623

In view of the above proviso to sub-rule(4), in my

¶624

humble opinion, the Legislature in its wisdom has considered the aspect of issuance of permit or renewal of permit once made it becomes the duty of the RTA to send a copy of the permit to the authority of the other region. Thereafter, if the RTAs do not communicate the concurrence for plying of the stage carriage within thirty (30) days from the date of application by issuing permits or renewals, it shall be deemed that they have accorded concurrence for the same. Therefore, the KMV Rules clearly prescribes a procedure as to how the permits/renewals are to be issued and once issued, what is the procedure and process to be followed by prescribing the time lines. It is seen that by virtue of this Rule, it is not only the privilege and preferential right of the permit holders for grant of renewal, it is also deeming provision cast on the authority to perform the task within a stipulated time

¶625

¶626

period, failing which, the permits/renewals are deemed to take into effect in favour of the permit holders.

¶627

In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the opinion that there is nothing illegal or wrong in the RTA granting the renewal of permit to the permit holders and the tribunal setting aside the grant of renewal of permit cannot be sustained. Hence, the same requires to be quashed, so also, the liberty granted by the tribunal to the permit holders to file an application for fresh permit/renewal before the competent/ appropriate authority having territorial jurisdiction cannot be said to be illegal and perverse.

¶628

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶629

ORDER

¶630

i) The petitions filed by the Corporation are dismissed; ii) The petitions filed by the permit holders are allowed; iii) The impugned orders in R.P.Nos.94, 108, 105, 110, 112, 123, 124, 127, 106, 109, 119, 107, 104, 118, 130, 125 and 126 of 2019 passed by the tribunal are quashed;

¶631

¶632

iv) The permit holders shall be entitled to the benefit of Rule 66(4) of the KMV Rules and its proviso , unless the same is contrary to Rule 66(7) of the KMV Rules;

¶633

v) The permit holders' renewal shall however be subject to payment of necessary statutory fee and other conditions so stipulated for grant of permit/renewal.

¶634

Sd/JUDGE

¶635

Mohammed Irshad v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Irshad v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner Vs M/S Canara Jewellers

Sri Narasaraju Vs Sri B Hanumaiah

B.M Venkatesh Vs Mylarappa S/O Lt Gangappa

Parameshwarappa Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri v Shivanna Vs Sri P Nanjaiah @ Gantappa S/O Late Maregowda

Smt Ameedabiyamma @ Ameeda Bi Vs Smt Parveen Fatima W/O MD Areef Saheb