Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1979 DIGILAW 171 (KAR)

B. GANGADHARAIAH v. KAR. S. T. A. T.

1979-07-24

K.A.SWAMI

body1979
K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 11430/78 is an operator of stage carriage services on the routes Tumkur to Hindupur and Tumkur to Gowribidanur. The petitioner in W. P. No. 11431/78 is an operator of a stage carriage service on the route Shravandahalli to Gowribidanur via Tumkur. The petitioner in W. P. No. 11432/78 is an operator of a stage carriage service on the route Thondebhavi to Tumkur via Holavanahally, akkirampura and Koratagere. ( 2 ) THE 3rd respondent applied for a grant of stage carriage permit on the route gowribidanur to Tumkur to operate it as an express service with three halts. The r. T. A. notified the application and called for objections. After hearing the objectors, the R. T. A. came to the conclusion that there was a need for granting the express service on the route applied for by the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, by the resolution dated 10-4-1975 in Subject No. 358/74-75 the R. T. A. , Tumkur, granted the stage carriage permit with three halts namely, at Byrenahally cross, Holavanahally and Koratagere. On the basis of the said grant, the timings also came to be assigned by the R. T. A. on 17th May 1975. While assigning the timings, the Secretary, r. T. A. , came to the conclusion that in view of the fact that the service of the 3rd respondent being an express service, he was not allowed to pick up any passenger of set down any passenger on the common routes covered by the stage carriage permits held by the petitioners in these petitions. Thereafter, the R. T. A. by its resolution dated 14-8-1975, on the basis of the representation made by the M. L. A. , Koratagere, has granted two more halts at Akkirampura and Somapura to the stage carriage permit of the 3rd respondent. It is not in dispute that before passing of the aforesaid resolution dated 14-8-1975, produced at Ext.-C, the petitioners were not notified and were not afforded an opportunity of being heard. It is not in dispute that before passing of the aforesaid resolution dated 14-8-1975, produced at Ext.-C, the petitioners were not notified and were not afforded an opportunity of being heard. ( 3 ) SHRI M. Rangaswamy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that at the time of granting the stage carriage permit, the petitioners being the objectors and their objections were heard and the permit came to be granted as an express service and thereafter the variation in the conditions of permit affecting the interest of the petitioners should not have been made without affording an opportunity to the petitioners. It was also further contended that by providing two more halts at Akkirampura and Somapura, the services of the petitioners have been affected inasmuchas, as per the conditions attached to the permit granted by the resolution dated 10-4-1975, the service of the 3rd respondent was to be an express service and he was not permitted to pick up or set down any passenger on the common routes ; but now, by granting of two more halts on the common route, the 3rd respondent has been enabled to pick up and set down passengers, who were intended to travel in the services of the petitioners and thereby the services of the petitioners have been adversely affected and as such, the order pissed by the R. T. A. , dated 14-8-1975 without affording an opportunity to the petitioner even though it affected the interests of the petitioners was not legal, and as such, it is liable to be quashed. ( 4 ) SRI P. R. Sreerangaiah, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submitted that the R. T. A. was competent to giant additional halts at Akkirampura and Somapura in view of the provisions contained in S. 48 (3) (xxi) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') and there was no necessity of issuing any notice to the petitioners and the notice required to be issued under the said provision was only to the 3rd respondent and not to others. He also further submitted that in view of the sufficient interval provided between the services of the petitioners and that of the 3rd respondent, the services of the petitioners will not, in any way, be affected. He also further submitted that in view of the sufficient interval provided between the services of the petitioners and that of the 3rd respondent, the services of the petitioners will not, in any way, be affected. S. 48 (3) (xxi) of the Act, reads as follows :" That the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not less than one month- (a) vary the conditions of the permit; (b) attach to the permit further conditions: 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 kilometers, and any variation within such limits shall be made only after the Regional transport Authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the public convenience and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or any part thereof;"the aforesaid provision provides that after giving notice of not less than one month, the R. T. A. may vary the conditions of the permit or attach to the permit further conditions subject to the conditions specified in the proviso contained therein. This provision cannot at all be interpreted that the notice intended therein is the notice required to be issued only to the holder of the permit, the conditions of which are going to be varied or further conditions are going to be attached. If, by reason of such variation of the conditions of the permit, the other existing operators are going to be affected by such variation, it becomes necessary for the R. T. A. to issue notices to them and to afford them an opportunity of being heard as otherwise, the R. T. A. will be varying the conditions of the permit of the 3rd respondent or attaching to the said permit further conditions affecting the services of the petitioners without affording an opportunity to them. Even though the order granting variation of the condition of the permit or attaching to the permit further conditions under S. 48 (3) (xxi) of the Act, may be in the nature of an administrative order and may, in the interest of the travelling public, be necessary to do so but, nevertheless, it will not absolve the R. T. A. from its duty to afford an opportunity to the other operators who are likely to be affected by granting such variations. It is one of the accepted principles of natural justice that no order should be passed against a person affecting his interest without affording an opportunity to him. In the instant case, it is the case of the petitioners that they were the objectors to the application filed by the 3rd respondent for grant of the stage carriage permit in question and on taking into consideration the objections of the petitioners, the stage carriage permit came to be granted to the 3rd respondent as an express service. If that be so, it was all the more necessary on the part of the R. T. A. to issue notice to the petitioners before varying the conditions of the permit or before attaching to the permit further conditions. This should not be interpreted to mean that in every case in which a variation of conditions of the permit or attaching to the permit further conditions is sought for, the existing operators on the route even though not affected should be notified by the R. T. A. But, in cases where the existing operators are going to be affected, it becomes necessary for the R. T. A. to give notice of not less than one month as provided in S 48 (3) (xxis) of the Act. Consequently, and in view of the fact that no such notices were issued to the existing operators who are the petitioners in these writ petitions, the resolution passed by the R. T. A. dated 14-8-1975 produced at Exhibit-C and confirmed by the kstat, cannot be sustained. Consequently, the resolution of the R. T. A. , tumkur, dated 14-8-1975 passed in Subject no. 124/75-76 (Exhibit-C) and the order of the KSTAT dated 15-7-1978 passed in Appeal Nos. 666/75 and 26/75 (Exhibit-D), are hereby quashed. Consequently, the resolution of the R. T. A. , tumkur, dated 14-8-1975 passed in Subject no. 124/75-76 (Exhibit-C) and the order of the KSTAT dated 15-7-1978 passed in Appeal Nos. 666/75 and 26/75 (Exhibit-D), are hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that it is open for the R. T. A. , tumkur, to vary the conditions of the permit of the 3rd respondent or attach to the permit further conditions, after affording an opportunity to the petitioners. ( 5 ) NO order as to costs. --- *** --- .