Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1982 DIGILAW 27 (KAR)

M. K. SANJEEVA MARLA v. K. S. T. A. T.

1982-01-28

M.P.CHANDRAKANTARAJ

body1982
M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THESE two petitions coming up for preliminary hearing after notices to respondents are disposed of by the following order, as substantially the questions raised in the two petitions are common both on facts and law. ( 2 ) IN WP No. 15494/1981 the petitioner has assailed the correctness of the order made by the Karnataka State Transport appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, 1st respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) in Rev. Petn. Nos. 41 and 45/1981 on its file. Those revision petitions came to be filed before the Tribunal by one k. A Somanna (3rd respondent) questioning the legality and correctness of the resolution of the Regional Transport authority, Kodagu, Madikere, (hereinafter referred to as the RTA) 2nd respondent herein in Subject No. 89/1980 dated 28-11-1980. That resolution of the RTA purports to be a resolution fixing the number of permits to be granted on the route shanivarasanthe to Virajapet via Bannavara, Somavarpet, Harangi, Nanjaraya- patna, 10th Mile and Madikeri. The 4th respondent also questioned the aforementioned resolution of the RTA before the tribunal in another revision petition. The revision petitioners contended before the tribunal that the RTA could not, on the application of the petitioner, decide the number of permits to be sanctioned on the route in question so that the petitioner could have advantage over other intending operators even before the opening up of the routes for stage carriage operation was published under S. 57 (2) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). They further contended that the resolution did not disclose any material having been considered by the RTA in arriving at the number of permits that were required to be sanctioned for that route and therefore it was in violation of the express provision contained in sub-sec. (3) of S. 47 of the Act itself. ( 3 ) SIMILARLY, in WP No. 22814/1981, the petitioner T. V. Nagaraj applied for two stage carriage permits on the routes siddapur to Shirangala via Harangi, kushalnagar and Siddapur to Maldare which came to be considered on 29-4-1981 in Subject No. 4 of 1981 on the file of the 2nd respondent RTA. At that meeting it passed the resolution fixing four permits on the routes in question with a direction to notify the same under S. 57 (3) of the act. At that meeting it passed the resolution fixing four permits on the routes in question with a direction to notify the same under S. 57 (3) of the act. The legality and propriety of that resolution was challenged by Sri N. P. Uthappa in Rev. Petn. No. 243/1981 before the Tribunal on more or less the same grounds, as the respondents 3 and 4 in WP no. 15494/1981. The Tribunal by a separate order upheld the contentions of the revision petitioners before it and quashed the resolution leaving it open to the RTA to consider the question of fixing the number of permits and trips to be operated on the routes in question first and then proceed in accordance with law for purpose of actually issuing the permits to suo moto applicant or applicants in response to the notification under S. 57 (2) of the Act. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the two orders of the tribunal, the above writ petitions are preferred by the petitioners under Art. 226 of constitution inter alia seeking to set aside the same and restore the resolutions of the rta. ( 5 ) SRI B. R. S. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, drew my attention to the portion of the order of the tribunal in Rev. Petn. Nos. 41 and 45/1981 wherein the Tribunal has placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this court in the case of Revanappa Sangappa v. RTA, Bidar (1 ). The relevant portion relied upon by the Tribunal reads as follows :"prudence and propriety and consideration of promotion of public interest might well require and persuade the rta that applications be invited and the pending applications disposed of along with applications so received in response to the notification inviting applications". That, above is the observation made by the Full Bench of this Court is not disputed by Mr. Gupta. However, his complaint is that the Full Bench did not lay that down as the proposition of law. That, above is the observation made by the Full Bench of this Court is not disputed by Mr. Gupta. However, his complaint is that the Full Bench did not lay that down as the proposition of law. While on the other hand, it did specifically rule that a scrutiny of the provisions of s. 47 (3) read with S. 57 (2) of the Act did not compel or justify the extreme view that suo motu application for grant of permit filed before the determination under s. 47 (3) of the Act should be considered along with the applications to be received pursuant to a notification that may be issued under the latter part of S. 57 (2) of the Act. Therefore, Mr. Gupta contends that when the Full Bench ruled that there was no bar for a suo motu application being considered, the Tribunal was in error in concluding that no consideration of the suo motu application of an intending operator could take place before the publication of the resolution of the RTA opening the route under S. 57 (2) of the Act. It is true that the Full Bench did consider the extreme contentions advanced to the contrary. But the Full Bench also took care later in the course of the judgment to point out that the law was that the decision under S. 47 (3) of the Act which was essentially a decision as to administrative policy must be anterior, both in point of time and in fact to the decision to grant or reject an application for permit. In the light of the clarification made by the Full bench, the impugned resolutions, prima facie, do not satisfy the requirement that limiting the number of permits has to be anterior to the consideration of the application. In fact the resolutions which are extracted below read as follows : in WP No. 15494/1981"extract of the proceeding of the RTA meeting dated 28-11 1980. Sub. No. 89/80 : To consider the application received from Sri M. N. San- jeeva Maria, Madikere for grant of pucca stage carriage permit on route sanivarasan the Banavar Somavarpet harangi Nanjarayapatna 10th Mile madikere Virajpet and back. Sub. No. 89/80 : To consider the application received from Sri M. N. San- jeeva Maria, Madikere for grant of pucca stage carriage permit on route sanivarasan the Banavar Somavarpet harangi Nanjarayapatna 10th Mile madikere Virajpet and back. Resolution : It was resolved to fix 10 permits under S. 47 (3) of MV Act on the route Sanivarasanthe Banavara-Somavarpet - Harangi - Nanjarayapatna 10th Mile-Madikere-Virajpet and back and ordered to notify the application under S. 57 (3) of MV Act by incorporating the timings filed by the applicant. Sd/ Chairman and Members of RTA, Kodagu, Madikere". In WP No. 22814/1981 :"extract of the Proceedings of the rta Meeting dated 29th April, 1981 : sub. No. 4/81 : To consider the application received from Sri T. V. Naga- raju, Guyya Augusteswara Estate, siddapur for grant of pucca stage carriage permit on route : 1) Siddapur Harangi -Kushalnagar shrirangala and back 2 RTD. , 2) Siddapur-Maldare 2 RD as per the list of timings appended. Resolution : It was resolved to fix 4 permits for the route and directed the secretary, RTA, to notify the application under S. 57 (3) of MV Act. Sd/-Chairman and Members of rta, Kodagu, Madikere". From the above it is clear that the RTA proceeded to consider the application made suo motu by the two applicants and in that process limited the number of permits to be granted on the routes in question. By no stretch of imagination in either of the cases could it be said that the decision to limit the number of permits to 10 or 4 as the case may be was anterior in point of time and in fact, to the consideration of the application of the petitioners. ( 6 ) SRI Gupta has argued that if the court were to ignore the subject mentioned in the resolutions, then the resolution would become legal in as much as no permit was rejected or granted by the resolution, but only the permits were limited to a given number, as required by s. 47 (3) of the Act. The thrust of the argument is that notwithstanding the fact that the resolutions purported to consider the applications, the real decision was a decision simpjiciter under Sec. 47 (3) of the Act and therefore should be upheld. The thrust of the argument is that notwithstanding the fact that the resolutions purported to consider the applications, the real decision was a decision simpjiciter under Sec. 47 (3) of the Act and therefore should be upheld. ( 7 ) IT is in the light of this submission that the orders of the Tribunal are sought to be set aside. It is difficult to accede to that contention. S. 47 (3) of the Act, as held by the Full Bench of this Court, is a power exercised by the RTA concerned in taking a policy decision in the administration of the Motor Vehicles Act enabling stage carriage operations on routes. But the Full Bench hastened to add that the first decision, that is to limit the permits on the route should be determined in the light of only such matters as were relevant to it and not with an eye on the number of applications before it or the persons who made those applications. In other words, the act of determining the number of permits on a route should be in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-sec. (3) of S. 47 of the Act and not taking into consideration extraneous matters such as the number of applicants or the applicant himself before a decision is taken as to the number of permits to be issued. That number should have relevance to factors enumerated in sub sec. (1) of s. 47 of the Act. Applying the above ruling to the facts of these cases, one cannot but fail to see that the resolutions apart from being mixed up with the consideration of applications before the RTA, are bald, bereft of reason and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken. There is no discussion of the material that may have been placed before the RTA. It is not a speaking order and therefore the Tribunal rightly pointed out that the resolutions were too bald and were not indicative of the material considered by the RTA leading to the inevitable conclusion that the number of permits had a nexus to the applications which were being considered by the RTA. ( 8 ) IN this view of the matter, the Tribunal relied upon the correct passage in the judgment of this Court in the aforementioned decision in Revanappa Sangappd's (1) case and the conclusion it has reached is correct. ( 8 ) IN this view of the matter, the Tribunal relied upon the correct passage in the judgment of this Court in the aforementioned decision in Revanappa Sangappd's (1) case and the conclusion it has reached is correct. It is unnecessary for this Court to interfere with the findings to set aside the resolutions. The resolutions are on the face of them not in accordance with law. ( 9 ) SRI Gupta has strenuously urged before this Court that both the petitioners have invested large sums acquiring new vehicles and have been operating the stage carriage services on the permits granted to them and it will be a great hardship to them as well as the public if this Court did not save such operation till the number of permits could be determined afresh by the rta and new permits granted to those who are eligible to have the same. I do not think I should accede to this request, as no material has been placed before me to substantiate the assertions that they have indeed operated the services. Even otherwise if something is done unlawfully at the instance of the petitioners, they should not be allowed to fake advantage of such illegal resolutions as have been extracted above. ( 10 ) IN the result for the reasons given above, these writ petitions are rejected. No costs. --- *** --- .