Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 682 (KAR)

D. Pushpa v. Regional Transport Authority

2000-10-09

MOHAMED ANWAR

body2000
ORDER Mohamed Anwar, J.—Heard both sides. 2. The Petitioners who are existing operators pray: to issue a writ in the nature of the Writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in Sub. No. 225/96-97 dated 22.12.99 and 6.1.2000 in Annexure-B and also the Proceedings of the 2nd Respondent dated 19.2.2000 assigning schedule of timings to the service of the 3rd Respondent in Annexure C to the Writ Petition; and further be pleased to grant such other appropriate relief as may be deemed fit to meet the ends of justice. 3. Admittedly, the very Annexure-B had been challenged by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) in a batch of writ petitions in Writ Petition Nos. 563-66 of 2000 which have been disposed of by order dated 3.4.2000 directing the Petitioners therein to challenge the same i.e., Annexure-B before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Authority (KSTAT) by availing the statutory remedy of revision or appeal (vide pages 63 and 64 of the order), and that the Petitioners herein have, in fact, challenged Annexure-B in revision before the KSTAT. Therefore Mr. Krishna Swamy, learned Counsel for Petitioners, confines the prayer in the present petitions to Annexure-C only. as a result, these petitions would be treated as directed against Annexure-C alone. 4. It is not in dispute that by resolution dated 22.12.1999 and 6.1.2000 passed in Sub. No. 225/96-97 of Respondent No. 1 granting Stage Carriage Permit to Respondent No. 3, the time schedule was allotted to his Stage Carriage by Respondent No. 2 as per Annexure-C in compliance with the direction given to him in the said resolution. In other words, purporting to exercise the powers delegated to him under the said resolution by Respondent-1 RTA, Respondent-2 proceeded to assign the timings as indicated in Annexure-C to the stage carriage service of Respondent-3. Admittedly, Respondent-2 was not the duly appointed regular Secretary of Respondent No. 1, but he was merely acting as in-charge Secretary when he issued the time table for the stage carriage service of Respondent-3 per Annexure-C. In other words, he (Respondent-1) was temporarily holding the charge of the office of the said Secretary as an ad-hoc arrangement during the absence of regular Secretary. Therefore, Sri Krishna Swamy, learned Counsel for Petitioners contended that Respondent-2 as in-charge Secretary of Respondent-1 at the relevant point of time had no legal authority to issue Annexure-C in favour of Respondent-3's stage carriage service. In support of this contention, reliance was placed by him on a Division Bench decision of this Court in M. Maridev Vs. State of Mysore and Others, 1968 (1) Mys LJ 325 wherein it is laid down; Officiating appointments and in-charge arrangements are well understood terms in civil service. When an Officer is appointed to officiate in a higher appointment, he is invested with the powers of the higher post, but when he is placed in charge of the current duties of vacant post in a higher appointment, whether in addition to his own or independently, he cannot exercise any of the statutory powers of the office, he can merely perform the day-to-day duties only. 5. Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with grant of stage carriage permit. Sub-section (2) thereof empowers the Regional Transport Authority granting the permit to attach any of the conditions mentioned therein. Assignment of time-table for operation of a stage carriage under a valid permit is not expressly spelt out as condition of the permit by any of the Sub-clauses (i) to (xxxiv) of Section 72(2). But it may be construed as falling within the purview of Sub-clauses (iv) and (xxii) of Section 72(2). The relevant portions of these provision are extracted below. 72. Grant of stage carriage permits.-(1) ... (2) The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified description and may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely: (i) to (iii)... (iv) that copies of the time-table of the stage carriage approved by the Regional Transport Authority shall be exhibited on the vehicles and at specified stands and halts on the route or within the area; (v) to (xxi)... (xxii) that the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not less than one month,- (a) ... (b) attach to the permit further conditions; Provided that ... (xxiii) and (xxiv) ... 6. (xxii) that the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not less than one month,- (a) ... (b) attach to the permit further conditions; Provided that ... (xxiii) and (xxiv) ... 6. Interpreting the corresponding provisions in Section 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, the Division Bench of this Court in H.C. Channaiah, Prop., H.P.C. Motor Service Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Chickmagalur and Another, AIR 1963 Mys 253 laid down: It is only if a decision is taken on that matter by the Regional Transport Authority that it can find it possible to impose a condition that copies of that time-table should be exhibited in the stage carriage or to prescribe margins of deviation from the approved time-table. That the Regional Transport Authority has the power to direct the operator to exhibit in his stage carriage the approved time-table or his power to authoritise the operation of the stage carriage with slight modifications of the time-table makes it, in my opinion, more than clear that the legislative intent was that the time- table must be prescribed by the Regional Transport Authority when it grants the permit without postponing the preparation of that time-table to a future occasion. At para 6 of the judgment, their lordships further proceed to hold; That being so, that part of the application of the operators who were selected as the permit holders which related to the assignment of a timing remained outstanding without being disposed of by the Regional Transport Authority when it made the selection of the permit holders, and though the postponement was what was not authorised by law.... 7. The afore quoted provisions of the present Act when construed in the light of the pronouncement of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in H.C. Channiah's case cited supra, it leaves no room to doubt that by virtue of Sub-clauses (iv) and (xxii) of Section 72(2) of the New Act, the assignment of the time-table by the RTA for the stage carriage service of an operator would be a condition of the permit granted to him by this authority. As observed in the case of Channiah, the time schedule or the permit granted in respect of the stage carriage service was also required to be produced and attached to the permit by the RTA without delay. As observed in the case of Channiah, the time schedule or the permit granted in respect of the stage carriage service was also required to be produced and attached to the permit by the RTA without delay. This is a statutory duty which the RTA is bound to perform with reasonable despatch and diligence. However, it is the common knowledge that this part of the function i.e., assignment of time schedule to the permit granted, has always been evaded by the RTA and that it has adopted the practice of delegating this power to its Secretary under its resolution by which the permits are granted to the stage carriage operators. 8. Of course, I find that, such delegation of this power of the RTA to its Secretary is authorised by Sub-section (5) of Section 68 of the Act read with Rule 55(iv) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1999 ('the Rules of 99' for short) framed thereunder. Section 68 relates to constitution, composition and the general powers of the Transport Authorities. Sub-section (5) of Section 68 reads: (1) ... (2) ... (3) ... (4) ... (5) The State Transport Authority and any Regional Transport Authority, if authorised in this behalf by rules made under Section 96, may delegate such of its powers and functions to such authority or person subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as may be prescribed by the said rules. Section 96 vests the power with the State to make rules for the purposes of Chapter-V which deals with "Control of Transport Vehicles" in which Sections 68 and 72 occur. The Rules of 1989 are framed thereunder. Rule 55 governs delegation of powers by the RTA (Regional Transport Authority) and the relevant Clause (iv) of Rule 55 reads: Delegation of powers by Regional Transport Authority.-(1) A Regional Transport Authority may, by general or special resolution recorded in its proceedings and subject to the restriction, limitation and conditions herein specified delegate,- (a)to its Secretary or any Officer of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of an Assistant Regional Transport Officer all or any of its following powers, namely: (i) ... (ii) ... (iii) ... (iv) Powers to attach to a stage carriage permit conditions under Sub-section (2) of Section 72, or to vary the conditions thereof. 9. (ii) ... (iii) ... (iv) Powers to attach to a stage carriage permit conditions under Sub-section (2) of Section 72, or to vary the conditions thereof. 9. The combined reading of the afore-quoted provisions make it clear that the RTA is sufficiently empowered under the Act to delegate any of its powers under Section 72(2) of the Act to its Secretary or any Officer of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of an Assistant Regional Transport Officer. Undisputedly, Respondent-2 was incharge Secretary of the RTA who was an Officer of the Motor Vehicles Department but was above the rank of an Assistant Regional Transport Officer. But the point for determination is whether he was delegated with the power of RTA by its any general or special resolution to assign the time-table to the stage carriage permit of Respondent-3 and to the permit of any other stage carriages. It is not at all in dispute that any such power of the RTA under the Act was not at all delegated to him by its any general resolution as such. But then what has to be seen is if any such power particularly the power of assignment of timing to a stage carriage service in respect of which the permit was granted by the RTA was delegated to Respondent No. 2 by its any special resolution. Undisputedly, the said resolution passed by Respondent-1 RTA in its meeting dated 22.12.1999 and 6.1.2000 in Sl. No. 69 Sub. No. 225/96-97, the certified copy whereof is produced at Annexure-B, is a special resolution. It is under this resolution which the stage carriage permit was granted by the RTA to Respondent-3. As regards assignment of time table with respect thereto, the relevant portion of Annexure-B reads: The Secretary, RTA is authorised to harmonize the timings for issue of permit. The grantee shall produce a vehicle (stage carriage) which is within 10 years of age for being covered in the permit, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the proceedings. 10. So, this relevant portion of the special resolution of the RTA in Annexure-B makes it clear that the power to assign the time schedule to the stage carriage permit of Respondent-3 was specifically delegated to the Secretary, RTA and to none else. 10. So, this relevant portion of the special resolution of the RTA in Annexure-B makes it clear that the power to assign the time schedule to the stage carriage permit of Respondent-3 was specifically delegated to the Secretary, RTA and to none else. In that view of the matter, Respondent-2 who was incharge Secretary to RTA at the material time could not be treated as its Official Secretary proper. Therefore, Respondent-2 should not have acted as a delegate of that Power as he had no legal authority to do so. As such his order issuing the time-table per Annexure-C, impugned herein, is an order without authority. Hence, it is liable to be quashed. 11. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the petition is allowed in respect of impugned Annexure-C dated 19.2.2000 issued by Respondent-2, and is quashed. To obviate any inconvenience to Respondent-3 in operation of his stage carriage service in respect of which varied permit was granted to him by Respondent-1, the Secretary of Respondent-1 shall grant the timetable to the said stage carriage permit within 30 days from the date of this order in compliance with the direction given to him in the resolution of RTA vide Annexure-B.