Allowed

Sri Raghavendra Bhat v. the Secretary Regional Transport

Karnataka HC4 Apr 2024WP/9433/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Stage carriage permit holders challenged temporary permits granted to KSRTC for Kollur Mookambika routes. The court found no material substantiating a Section 87(1) purpose, quashed the temporary permits and directed reconsideration within ten days.

What did the court decide?

Temporary permits Nos. 36/2023-24 and 37/2023-24 quashed; RTA directed to reconsider respondent No.2's application within ten days.

Sri Raghavendra Bhat Vs the Secretary Regional… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:13890 WP No. 9433 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 9433 OF 2024 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. RAGHAVENDRA BHAT, S/O SUBRAMANYA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PROP. BHARATH MOTORS, LIONS MARKS, BRAHMAGIRI, UDUPI - 576 101.

¶9

SMT. SUSHMA GANIGA, W/O SHIVANANDA GANIGA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, PORP: KRISHNA MOTOR SERVICE, KASTURI NIVAS, UPPUNDA, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. PUTHIGE R RAMESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

¶12

SRI. A.S. PARASARA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT ARUTHORITY, RAJATHADRI, MANIPAL, UDUPI - 577 102.

¶16

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027, (MANGALORE DIVISION).

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. S.R. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R1; SRI. HARISH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS. QUASH THE ORDER IN ISSUE OF TEMPORARY PERMIT NOS. 36/2023-24 AND

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:13890 WP No. 9433 of 2024

¶21

37/2023-24 IN FAVOUR OF R-2 FOR THE ROUTES DAY 1, KUNDAPURA MUNICIPAL BUS STAND TO KOLLUR AND BACK, KOLLUR TO MOOKAMBIKA RAILWAY STATION, BYNDOOR AND BACK, KOLLUR TO BHATKAL AND BACK, DAY 2 MOOKAMBIKA RAILWAY STATION, BYNDOOR TO KOLLUR AND BACK, KOLLUR TO KUNDAPUR TO MUNICIPAL BUS STAND AND BACK ANNEXURE-L AND M AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners who are granted with stage carriage permits for the routes Kateel to Kollur and back-1 round trip as a shuttle service and for route Kota to Kundapura and back-1 single trip and Kundapura to Kollur and back-1 single, trip Kollur to Byndoor and back-2 round trips, Kollur to Udupi-1 single trip and Udupi to Kota-1 single trip Katil to Kollur and back are before this Court challenging the temporary permit granted in favour of respondent No.2 for the route as enumerated in annexure-J and K which according to them substantially falls on the routes assigned to them.

¶25

Learned Senior counsel Sri. Puthige. R. Ramesh, representing the petitioners' counsel submits that the temporary permit granted in favour of the petitioners does not satisfy the requirement of Section 87(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as 'Section 87 of the Act, 1988). Therefore, the impugned order granting temporary permit in favour of respondent No.2 is contrary to Section 87, and the present petition filed without exhausting the alternative remedy of the appeal provided under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is maintainable.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:13890 WP No. 9433 of 2024

¶28

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that since there was a immediate need for the devotees of Kollur Mookambika Temple to travel from Byndoor to reach the Mookambika Temple, the respondent No.1 rightly granted temporary permit, and the same is in conformity with the provisions contained in Section 87 of the Act, 1988. He further submits that against the order granting temporary permit, there is efficacious remedy of appeal provided under Section 90 of the Act. Therefore, the petition filed without exhausting the alternative remedy of appeal is not maintainable in law.

¶29

Learned AGA reiterates the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶30

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

¶31

Learned AGA has placed on record the proceedings of respondent No.1 indicating that Respondent No.2 filed an application in form 38 Rule 63(1)(IV) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 for grant of temporary permit from 16.02.2024 to 15.06.2024. The records also indicated that Sri. Mookambika Temple, Kollur had addressed a communication with the Respondent No.1 for providing additional KSRTC bus service for the convenience of the devotees. The representation does not indicate that the additional KSRTC bus service is required to meet a particular need.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:13890 WP No. 9433 of 2024

¶34

Section 87 of the Act, 1988 deals with grant of temporary permit for the purposes as enumerated in clause-(a) to (d) of Section 87(1) of the Act, 1988.

¶35

In the instant case respondent No.2 has not placed any material on record to substantiate that the temporary permit granted satisfies any of the purpose enumerated in clause-(a) to (d) of 87(1) of the Act, 1988. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i) The petition is allowed.

¶38

ii) Therefore, the impugned orders issuing temporary permit No.36/2023-24 and 37/2023-24 in favour of respondent No.2 at annexure-L and M are hereby quashed.

¶39

iii) Respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the application submitted by respondent No.2 after providing an opportunity to furnish additional documents, if any.

¶40

iv) The said exercise shall be concluded within ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

PNV

Sri Raghavendra Bhat v. the Secretary Regional Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Raghavendra Bhat v. the Secretary Regional Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Benson Benny Vs Union of India

Mrs. Poonam Kochhar Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S K M Mohammed Mansoor Vs the Chief Secretary

M C Prakash Vs the Regional Transport Authority Chitradurga

Shri.G.v Sathish Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

United Breweries Limited Vs State of Karnataka