Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1986 DIGILAW 294 (KAR)

SHIVARAM, P. v. SECRETARY, K. S. T. A. T.

1986-07-21

M.P.CHANDRAKANTARAJ

body1986
M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THESE matters coming up for orders, by consent of counsel for parties, are taken up for final hearing and disposed of by the following order : ( 2 ) THE facts that may be stated for the purpose of disposal of these petitions are as follows : the petitioners in all these petitions are existing inter-state stage carriage operators operating in the States of karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. Their routes overlap wholly or partly the routes of the 2nd respondent-Karnataka state Road Transport Corporation which has been granted temporary permits on such routes under Section 62 (1) of the motor Vanicles Act, 1939 (hereafter referred to as the 'act' ). They are aggrieved because their operations are affected and also because the grant of the temporary permits is not in accordance with law and the grants are without jurisdiction. ( 3 ) IT appears that the representatives of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka met in the Chambers of the Hon'ble Minister for Transport and housing, Government of Karnataka at bangalore on 14-12-1985 and agreed to operate the stage carriages on the interstate routes to start with on temporary permits on single point tax pending finalisation of the inter-state agreement under Section 63 of the Act. Before reaching that agreement, the routes to be so operated were to be according to the proposals submitted by the Road Transport Corporations of the respective states. From the true copy of the Minutes produced for my perusal, this item finds a place at item No. 6, the last item. Thereafter the Karnataka Road Transport corporation appears to have made applications under the provisions of the Act for grant of permits purporting to be applications under Section 45 read with section 62 of the Act stating that the purpose of seeking temporary permits was to meet the established traffic demand as per the III Supplemental Inter-State agreement etc. , (See Annexure-A in W. P. No. 8789 and 8790 of 1986 ). The applications thus made to the State transport Authority, Karnataka, have been granted in respect of the various routes which are to be found in Annexure-B in the aforementioned writ petitions. , (See Annexure-A in W. P. No. 8789 and 8790 of 1986 ). The applications thus made to the State transport Authority, Karnataka, have been granted in respect of the various routes which are to be found in Annexure-B in the aforementioned writ petitions. ( 4 ) AS already stated, aggrieved by the resolution granting temporary permits to the K. S. R. T. C. , the petitioners have questioned the grant inter alia contending that the agreement is not an agreement contemplated under Section 63 of the Act; that the agreement reached in the Chambers of the Minister for Transport and Housing to finalise the interstate agreement cannot itself be treated as an inter-state agreement; and that in any event, in the absence of any such agreement or assuming that the interstate agreement does exist, there cannot be any jurisdiction vested in the State transport Authority, Karnataka, or any other authority to grant temporary permits to meet what otherwise appears to be a permanent need. ( 5 ) THE above contentions do not even require any judicial authority to be upheld. Section 63 provides for the procedure by which inter-regional or inter-state permit is to be validated in the region or State where it is not granted as also for certain types of permits to be granted on special basis as special permits or All India Tourist Permits. Section 63a speaks of Inter-state Transport Commission with which we may not concern ourselves. Under sub-section (3a) of Section 63 of the Act, every proposal to enter into an agreement between the States referred to in the proviso to sub-section (3) and every proposal in such agreement to fix the number of permits which is proposed to be granted or counter-signed in respect of each route or area is required to be published by each of the State Government concerned in the Official Gazette together with a notice of the date before which representations in connection therewith may be submitted, such date being not less than 30 days from the date of publication. This aparently is to eliminate both the rigour of entrusting the concerned State Transport Authorities the need for exercising itself in regard to the requirement of Section 47 (3) as well as to eliminate the need for granting counter-signatures in respect of such inter- state permits. This aparently is to eliminate both the rigour of entrusting the concerned State Transport Authorities the need for exercising itself in regard to the requirement of Section 47 (3) as well as to eliminate the need for granting counter-signatures in respect of such inter- state permits. ( 6 ) A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport corporation v Karnataka State Transport Authority (AIR 1984 Karnataka, 4) has clearly laid down that the publication referred to in sub-section (3a) of section 63 of the Act is mandatory and that such publication of the proposed inter-state agreement should be made by both the States. In the instant case, beyond the Minutes of the Meeting held in the Chambers of Hon'ble Minister for transport, no material is placed by the corporation or the State Transport authority, the 1st respondent, evidencing any publication of the proposed interstate agreement which is required to be finalised under item No. 6 of the Minutes earlier referred to. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, that there Is no interstate agreement in respect of the routes in question to be operated either onpucca permits or temporary permits is not doubt. Assuming that there exists an inter-state agreement in respect of certain routes, in terms of Section 63 (3a) of the Act, one should not fail to see that under Section 62 (1) of the Act, the authorities mentioned therein may grant a permit only if a temporary need exists, such temporary need being similar to what are enumerated in clauses (a) (b) (c) and (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 62. If the agreement, evidences a premanent need, the question of invoking sub-section (1) of Section 62 does not arise because, the 1st provisio to sub-section (1) expressly bars the grant of a temporary permit where a pucca permit is to be granted on an application made in respect of that route. Perhaps the extent of need that may come nearest even where a permanent need exists is the one that is provided for under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 62 of the Act. Perhaps the extent of need that may come nearest even where a permanent need exists is the one that is provided for under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 62 of the Act. ( 8 ) BUT it has been pointed out that the Supreme Court in the case of Madhya pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, v. Road Transport Authority (A. I. R. 1966 s. C. 156) has clearly ruled that the expression 'to meet a particular temporary need' need not be read restrictedly so as not to cover a permanent need which has not been catered to. But the said decision has qualified that statement of law by stating that such existence of temporary need and permanent need should be in relation to a particular route. This statement of law cannot be taken as applicable to all routes at all points of time. If it is understood in any other way, the distinction between the procedure precribed under Section 62 and the procedure prescribed under section 57 in the scheme of the Motor vehicles Act will totally disappear. Therefore, unless the respondent-Corporation establishes that on a particular route for reasons beyond its control, it' cannot get a pueca permit then only it may plead the need for obtaining temporary permit under Sub-Section (1) of section 62 of the Act. It cannot be said that the Corporation may be permitted to contend that there is a permanent need in respect of certain inter-state routes in respect of which the agreement is yet to bs finalised and also permit them to plead that till the agreement and other procedure is completed, it should be enabled to operate under the permits granted under Section 62 (1) of the Act, in any event, that cannot be extended to a whole set of routes between the two states which necessarily has to be in respect of areas lying adjacent to each of the States. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, 1 do not think the decision relied upon assists the case of the Corporation. In that view of the matter, the temporary permits now granted by the 1st respondent. Secretary, karnataka State Transport Authority, bangalore, must be held to be without, jurisdiction and contrary to law. Accordingly, the permits in question are quashed. Petitions are allowed. In W P. Nos. 9522/86, 9922/86, and 9704/86, rule is made absolute. In W. P. Nos. In that view of the matter, the temporary permits now granted by the 1st respondent. Secretary, karnataka State Transport Authority, bangalore, must be held to be without, jurisdiction and contrary to law. Accordingly, the permits in question are quashed. Petitions are allowed. In W P. Nos. 9522/86, 9922/86, and 9704/86, rule is made absolute. In W. P. Nos. 8789 and 8790/1986 and 8591 to 9595/1986, rule may issue and be made absolute. Sri P. R. Ramesh, learned High Court government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within 2 weeks as he has been directed to take notice for the State Transport Authority in these petitions. --- *** --- .