Allowed

R. Raghupathi Gowda v. the Karnataka State Transport Authority

Karnataka HC22 Mar 2024WP/8843/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bench quashed an Appellate Tribunal order that set aside a permit modification because it incorrectly calculated route variation. The court held that curtailment cannot be counted for variation limits, remanding the matter for re-assignment of timings.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal orders in Appeal Nos. 16 and 17/2023 were quashed/set aside; the matter was remanded for re-assignment of timings.

R. Raghupathi Gowda Vs the Karnataka State Transport… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:11955 WP No. 8843 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION No. 8843 OF 2024 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

R. RAGHUPATHI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O D. RAMEGOWDA, BUS OPERATOR, DOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, M.N. HALLI POST, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR 563 131.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. M. E. NAGESH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, 1^ST FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU 560 027.

¶15

THE SECRETARY, KSTA, 1^ST FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING, K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR BENGALURU 560 027.

¶16

ALLABAKSH, AGE 56 YEARS, S/O LATE AMANULLA,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11955 WP No. 8843 of 2024

¶18

PROP. G.A TRAVELS, No. 2078, SANTHE GATE EXTENSION M.B. ROAD, KOLAR, PIN 5631 01.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI S.R. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI A.S. PARASARA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL No.16 AND 17/2023 DATED 04.03.2024 UNDER ANNEXURE-D.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶25

The petitioner, who is granted with stage carriage operator for the route Gandalahalli to Bengaluru via KGF - Bangarpet - Malur - Hoskote to perform two round trips which is an enclave route, submitted an application with the first respondent for variation by way of curtailment of the trip and revision of timings. The first respondent allowed the application and directed the second respondent to assign suitable timings after hearing all the existing sector operators. The second respondent after issuing notice to all the existing sector operators, passed an order revising the timings which was endorsed on the permit of the petitioner.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11955 WP No. 8843 of 2024

¶27

Against which, the third respondent filed two appeals in Appeal Nos.16 and 17 of 2023. The Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals and set aside the orders passed by the first as well as the second respondent stating that the variation and curtailment of the route exceeding 24 kms. is not permissible and also the order passed by the first respondent was without conducting an enquiry.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and set aside the order passed by the first and second respondent stating as follows:

¶30

a) The variation of extension of the route sought does not exceed 24 kms. with reference to the original route.

¶31

b) Such variation / extension will not serve the convenience of public and

¶32

c) It is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof.

¶33

The Tribunal passed the impugned order relying on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of A.DIWAKARA NAIK VS. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2002 KAR 1357 . In the aforesaid, the Division Bench has ruled that the extent of curtailment cannot be counted for calculating extent of variation on extension permitted and when the curtailment of distance and extension of distance are one and the same, there cannot be any objection for grant of variations of the conditions of permit.

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11955 WP No. 8843 of 2024

¶35

Therefore, in view of the legal principle established by the Division Bench of this Court, only variation has to be counted and curtailment of the route cannot be counted for calculating the extent of variation exceeding 24 kms. Therefore, the Tribunal committed an error in applying the principle for curtailment of the route. To this extent, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal requires to be set aside, and matter be remitted to the second respondent to reconsider the assignment of timings assigned to the petitioner's permit.

¶36

5. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶39

ii) The order dated 4^th March, 2024 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Appeal No.16/2023 is hereby quashed.

¶40

iii) The order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the first respondent at 'Annexure - A' is confirmed.

¶41

iv) The order dated 4^th March, 2024 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No.17/2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the second respondent for re-assignment of timings to the permit granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶42

The said exercise shall be concluded after notifying all the interest of parties within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order.

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:11955 WP No. 8843 of 2024

¶44

¶45

Till the conclusion of proceedings before the second respondent, the petitioner is permitted to operate as per the present timings.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

AP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

R. Raghupathi Gowda v. the Karnataka State Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Raghupathi Gowda v. the 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt C a Shantha Vs Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

M/S. Siddhi Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R S Chandrashekar, Vs Tahsildar

Thippeswamy @ Sanna Thippeswamy Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Arun Kumar @ Vikas.B v Vs State by Karnataka

Hotel Royal Inn Vs the Commissioner of Excise in Karnataka