Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 651 (KAR)

Abubokar Siddiq v. Regional Transport Authority

2017-03-24

S.SUJATHA

body2017
ORDER : S. Sujatha, J. The petitioner has challenged the endorsement dated 26.07.2016 issued by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-K to the writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a private stage carriage operator, who filed an application on 15.05.2005 for grant of temporary stage carriage permits for the route Bheemasamudra to Challakere and additional trip from Bheemasamudra to Chitradurga and back. The temporary permit was granted to the petitioner under Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act for short). Some of the existing operators, aggrieved by the grant of temporary permit to the petitioner, preferred revision petitions before Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal for short). 3. The Tribunal had dismissed the revision petition. However, since the respondent No.1 had not assigned timings to operate, the petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No.54450/2014. This Court was pleased to allow the writ petition and directed respondent No.1 to consider the representation given by the petitioner for assignment of timings. Aggrieved by the same, some of the existing operators filed Revision Petition before the Tribunal. In the mean time, the temporary permit was assigned to the KSRTC. Hence, endorsement was issued by the respondent No.1 to surrender the temporary permits issued to the petitioner. Hence this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel Sri. A. Ananda Shetty appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Tribunal, while disposing of the Revision Petition filed by some of the rival operators in Revision Petition No.364/2011 and connected matters, on 18.07.2011 has categorically held that as per Section 104 of the Act, the validity of the impugned permit shall cease as and when regular permits are issued to STU. Therefore, suffice it to hold that the impugned grant of temporary permits is subject to the said condition. The said observations made by the Tribunal indicates that the temporary permits granted to the petitioner shall be in force till the regular permits are issued to the STU. The permit issued to the STU-KSRTC being temporary permit, the endorsement issued at Annexure-K is not in conformity with the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. The learned counsel submits that the object of issue of temporary permit under Section 104 of the Act is to cater to the needs and convenience of the travelling public and the temporary permit issued shall be in force until regular permits are issued to the STU's. 6. 5. The learned counsel submits that the object of issue of temporary permit under Section 104 of the Act is to cater to the needs and convenience of the travelling public and the temporary permit issued shall be in force until regular permits are issued to the STU's. 6. Issuance of the temporary permits to the STU's would not prohibit the other operators to operate under the temporary permit. According to the learned counsel, there is a difference between temporary permit and the regular permit. It is only on regular permit issued to the STU's, the permit issued to the petitioner temporarily, shall cease to exist and not otherwise. 7. The learned counsel Sri. Hareesh.T. Bhandary appearing for the respondent No.2, supporting the impugned endorsement at Annexure-K, submits that the Statute prevails, any observation made by the Tribunal with respect to the temporary permit becoming inoperative as and when the regular permit is issued to the STU's would not be interpreted contrary to the proviso to Section 104, to suit the convenience of the petitioner. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. Section 104 of the Act and the proviso there of, reads as under: Restriction on grant of permits in respect of a notified area or notified route. Where a scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of section 100 in respect of any notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme: Provided that where no application for a permit has been made by the State Transport Undertaking in respect any notified area or notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, may grant temporary permits to any person in respect of such notified area or notified route subject to the condition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of that area or route. 10. 10. The temporary permit was granted to the petitioner under Section 104 of the Act and the endorsement is issued on 26.07.2016 as per Annexure - K directing the petitioner to surrender the temporary permit in view of the temporary permit issued to the KSRTC on 16.03.2016. 11. Thus, it is clear that the temporary permit issued to the petitioner shall cease to be effective on the issue of the permit to State Transport Undertaking in respect of the area or route. The permit in the context of Section 104 of the Act does not differentiate between the temporary permit or regular permit. It is a permit as per Section 2(31) of the Act. The observation made by the Tribunal in the order as regards the validity of the impugned permit issued to the petitioner shall cease as and when regular permit is issued to the STU's, would not come to the assistance of the petitioner to claim that the impugned permit has not ceased, since, the permit issued to the STU's is only temporary. This argument is misplaced and cannot be countenanced with reference to Section 104 of the Act. 12. It is true that the temporary permit under Section 104 of the Act has been issued to cater to the needs of the travelling public and if any permit is issued to STU whether temporary or regular, the same shall be taken care by such STU's. No right has been accrued to the petitioner to claim that the temporary permit not ceased to be effective. Given the circumstances, the endorsement issued by the authorities at Annexure-K cannot be found fault with. No exception can be taken with the impugned endorsement. 13. The writ petitions are bereft of merit and stands dismissed.