Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1989 DIGILAW 134 (KAR)

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

1989-04-06

K.A.SWAMI

body1989
SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) AS this Writ Petition can be disposed of on a short ground, rule is issued and it is heard for final disposal on consent of both sides. ( 2 ) IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 24th january 1989 passed by the Secretary, Karnataka state Transport Authority, Bangalore-Annexure-B in No. STA. 6/cs. 222/88-89 granting counter-signature to temporary stage carriage permit granted to the second respondent on the route Chigaragunta to K. G. F. and back via Kuppam with effect from 25-1-1989 to 30-4-1989. Pursuant to the order Annexure-B, the counter-signature has been endorsed on the temporary permit on 25-1-1989 in No. STA. 6. CS/222/88-89 as per Annexure-C. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is an operator of a stage carriage service and he holds a stage carriage permit on the routes from Bangalore to Kuppam via Hoskote and Kuppam to madanapalli via K. G. F, Kolar and Srinivaspur on a major portion of the route in question. ( 4 ) THE impugned counter-signature has been challenged mainly on two grounds: (1) that the very grant of the temporary permit is bad in law because the application filed by the second respondent for grant of temporary permit does not contain any ground of need; (2) that the temporary permit is granted in succession continuously for the 3rd time. Therefore, the order granting counter-signature is impermissible in law and as such it is vitiated. It is also the contention of the petitioner that there are good number of services between Kuppam to K. G. F. and in the absence of any temporary need the grant of temporary permit is impermissible in law. ( 5 ) ON the contrary, it is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent that the aforesaid two contentions are not specifically raised and the same do not arise in a proceeding for grant of counter signature in as much as these grounds ought to have been raised only before the authority which has granted the temporary permit and as such the first respondent is justified in granting counter-signature in respect of the temporary permit in question as a portion of the route i. e. , an extent of 13 kms from the State Border to kgf lies in the State of Karnataka. As such it is submitted that the counter-signature cannot be invalidated. It is also submitted that the permit itself expires by the end of the month, therefore, it need not be interfered with. ( 6 ) THE records of the case are produced by the learned Government Pleader. The records also contain a copy of the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road transport Authority. A copy of the application filed by the Andhra Pradesh State transport Corporation is also produced as annexure-A. ( 7 ) IT is not possible to accept the contention of Sri. G. Lingappa, learned Counsel for the second respondent that the grounds leading to invalidity of the grant of temporary stage carriage permit cannot be raised in a proceeding for grant of a counter-signature. Counter-signature has to be granted to the permit which is valid in law. Therefore, it is permissible to raise a ground in a proceeding for grant of counter-signature which affects the validity of the permit. It is the duty of the countersigning authority to consider such a ground. No doubt, the counter-signing authority is not entitled to set aside the permit; but on that ground it is open to it to refuse to grant counter-signature. Hence, the contention of the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent that the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner having a bearing on the validity of the temporary permit are not permissible and should not be allowed to urged, is rejected. ( 8 ) ON a perusal of the application (Annexure-A) filed by the second respondent for grant of a temporary stage carriage permit, it is apparent that no ground whatsoever failing under Section 62 of the Act is stated. In column No. 4 of the application it is stated that the temporary stage carriage permit is required "for the conveyance of passengers". Thus the application as per the decision of the Supreme Court reported in andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v Venkatarami Reddi and others. 1971 (3) Supreme Court Cases 803, was liable, to be dismissed in limini without further enquiring into it. Thus the application as per the decision of the Supreme Court reported in andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v Venkatarami Reddi and others. 1971 (3) Supreme Court Cases 803, was liable, to be dismissed in limini without further enquiring into it. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:"in the application which was filed by the appellant for grant of the temporary permits in Form No. 32 which has been described with reference to Rule 126 (a) (vi) of the Rules, no purpose has been indicated against Item No. 4 which requires the purposes to be indicated for which the stage carriage permit is required. A letter was addressed by the appellant to the Secretary, State transport Authority, on August 24, 1966. Even in that letter the purpose or the reason for the issue of a temporary permit was not stated. In our opinion it is wholly futile to go into any of the points which were agitated before the learned Single judge and the Division Bench of the High court. There can be no manner of doubt that in the absence of any purpose or reason for which temporary permits were asked for the Regional Transport authority should have dismissed the application in limini because a temporary permit can be granted only if the permit is required for the purposes or reasons mentioned from (a) to (d) in Section 62 of the Act. Inspite of every effort on the part of the learned Counsel for the appellant to look for any document which would fulfil the requirement of a valid application under Section 62 nothing could be shown to us which would indicate the purpose for which the appellant asked for the grant of a temporary permit". That being the decision, this ground alone is sufficient to refuse to grant counter-signature. ( 9 ) IN addition to this the second contention is also amply proved from the very order passed by the Andhra Pradesh State transport Authority. In the order it is stated that earlier permit expired on 31-12-1988 and prior to the previous permit according to the case of the petitioner the second respondent had obtained another temporary permit on the route in question. According to the petitioner the permit in question is the third one granted in succession. Therefore, it is contended that it is not permissible to grant successive temporary permits. According to the petitioner the permit in question is the third one granted in succession. Therefore, it is contended that it is not permissible to grant successive temporary permits. It is established that continuously the second respondent is obtaining temporary stage carriage permits one after another. It is held by the supreme Court in A. Viswanathan v State transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry and another, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 731, that a temporary permit can be granted only if the permit is required for the purposes or reasons mentioned in Clauses (a) to (d) of section 62 (1) of the Act or in the circumstances referred to in sub-section (2) thereof. It is also further held that under sub-section (1a) of Section 47 of the Act certain percentage of the permits would have to be reserved for the persons belonging to scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and if the Government so desires to the economically weaker sections of the community. If the issue of such permits is postponed for any reason and only temporary permits are issued then the persons belonging to scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the weaker sections would not be able to enjoy the benefit of the reservations. Issuing temporary permits in such situation repeatedly for a long number of years would clearly be in violation of the letter and spirit of Section 62 under which such temporary permits are issued. The revalidation or renewal of a temporary permit or extension of the period for which a temporary permit is issued is not contemplated by law. In M/s. Basant Roadways v State transport Appellate Tribunal and others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 116, the Supreme Court has reiterated the same view. The relevant portion of the decision is as follows:"we, however, deprecate the practice of granting of temporary permits repeatedly to ply stage carriages for short periods even when it is made out that there is a grave need for increasing the number of regular services on the routes in question in the public interest. In many cases this practice has led to undesirable results. In all such cases the proper action to be taken by the Regional Transport authorities is to grant regular permits in accordance with law either by inviting applications for grant of permits or on the applications made by intending operators suo motu under Section 57 (2) of the motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In all such cases the proper action to be taken by the Regional Transport authorities is to grant regular permits in accordance with law either by inviting applications for grant of permits or on the applications made by intending operators suo motu under Section 57 (2) of the motor Vehicles Act, 1939. We hope that the Regional Transport Authorities will take necessary steps in accordance with law in respect of all the routes to alleviate the suffering of the travelling public. Petition dismissed". ( 10 ) HOWEVER, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the second respondent that as per the decision of the Supreme court in Madhya Pradesh State Road transport Corporation, v B. P. Upadhyaya regional Transport Authority, AIR 1966 supreme Court 156, a temporary stage carriage permit can be granted any number of times. It is not possible to hold that the aforesaid decision in B. P. Upadhyaya's case lays down that successive temporary permits can be granted. The observations made in that decision were in the context where a permanent and temporary need may co-exist and there is no antithesis between a particular temporary need and a permanent need. These two kinds of need may co-exist on a particular route. In that case there was an obstacle for granting a pucca stage carriage permit. Such is not the situation obtaining in the instant case. In fact, on the date the temporary permit was granted and prior to that date there was no obstacle whatsoever for issuing a pucca stage carriage permit. In the circumstances, it is not possible to hold that the observations made in B. P. Upadhyaya's case are applicable to the present case. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 24-1-1989 passed by the Secretary, KSTAT, bangalore Annexure-Band the endorsement of counter-signature of temporary permit dated 25-1-1989 hearing No. STA. 6. CS/222/88-89 produced as Annexure-C are hereby quashed. At this stage it is submitted by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 that as the second respondent intends to go up in appeal, the operation of this order may be stayed for a period of three weeks. In view of this submission, the operation of this order is stayed for a period of two weeks only. Sri. At this stage it is submitted by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 that as the second respondent intends to go up in appeal, the operation of this order may be stayed for a period of three weeks. In view of this submission, the operation of this order is stayed for a period of two weeks only. Sri. P. R. Ramesh, learned High Court government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance on behalf first respondent in six weeks. Writ Petition allowed. --- *** --- .