Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 752 (KAR)

M. Kaleem v. Karnataka State Transport Authority

2017-04-13

S.SUJATHA

body2017
ORDER : S. Sujatha, J. 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to accept notice on behalf of the respondent. 2. The petitioner filed applications for grant of fresh stage carriage permits. It is contended that the Regional Transport Officer, Bellary ['RTO', for short] sent a letter on 11.11.2014 to the respondent furnishing the joint route survey report for the routes mentioned in the application. The said subject matter was listed in the agenda at the meeting held by the respondent on 05.02.2016 and the applications filed by the petitioner were considered. 3. The Karnataka State Transport Authority ('KSTA' for short) resolved to defer the application for consideration with a direction to the Joint Commissioner for Transport, Shimoga division to furnish the joint route survey report, in view of the specific objections raised by the representative of the KSRTC and APSRTC, the said decision is impugned herein. 4. Learned counsel Sri. Srikanth. A, appearing for Sri. M.R.V. Achar, Advocate would contend that the RTO vide its letter dated 11.11.2014 has furnished a joint route survey report and the details of which is as under: "1. Total length of the route is 222.5 kms of which 13-5 kms lies in AP State. 2. The route does not overlap on any notified routes lying in Karnataka State and also in AP. 3. The portion of the route from State Border to State Border Via: D. Hirehal and Basapura is of 13.5 kms which is in enclave route falling under the provisions of Section 88 (1) of the M V Act 1988. 4. The entire route is motorable for heavy passenger vehicles on all seasons. 5. As per the report given by the APSRTC, the portion of the route from Basapura to Rampura traverses in AP and not found in any interstate agreements, but there is no mentioning of the overlapping portion." 5. Such being the case, there was no necessity for the KSTA to call for a fresh joint route survey report to defer the applications of the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel in support of his contentions, placed reliance on:- "(1) The Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. P.N. Anitha Vs. The Karnataka State Transport Authority (W.A. No. 1420/2016 (MV) (DD. 16th January 2007); and (2) Bir Bajrang Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Others ( AIR 1987 SC 1345 )." 7. 6. The learned counsel in support of his contentions, placed reliance on:- "(1) The Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. P.N. Anitha Vs. The Karnataka State Transport Authority (W.A. No. 1420/2016 (MV) (DD. 16th January 2007); and (2) Bir Bajrang Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Others ( AIR 1987 SC 1345 )." 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate supporting the impugned decision of the respondent, would contend that the specific objections were raised by the KSRTC and APSRTC as regards the overlapping in the route proposed by the petitioner. In such circumstances, it is fair on the part of the Authority to get the route surveyed by the Joint Commissioner for Transport. Hence, a direction was issued to the Joint Commissioner for Transport to furnish a joint route survey report. No infraction of law or any irregularity can be found in the decision of the respondent. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the joint route survey report available in the records of the respondent, there was no necessity to direct the Joint Commissioner for Transport, to furnish a fresh joint route survey. It is significant to note that the Law Officer appearing for the KSRTC filed written statement of objections submitting that the route proposed by the applicant from Kudligi KEB Circle to Ujjini Circle for a distance of 0.2 kms & Virupapura, NH-13 Cross to Moraba Cross a distance of 1.5 kms overlaps the notified route of Bellary Scheme and hence, in view of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in B.A. Linga Reddy's case in SLP No. 20539/2011 and other connected cases dated 18-12-2014, coupled with the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Adarsha Travels case reported in AIR 1986 SC 319 and KSRTC v. Ashrafulla Khan's case reported in AIR 2002 SC 629 and also in view of the specific prohibition u/s. 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ['Act', for short] the applications are liable to be rejected. Similarly, the standing counsel for APSRTC filed written objections contending that the intermediary places for the portion of the route lying in AP State are not mentioned so as to ascertain the overlapping portion of AP Schemes. Similarly, the standing counsel for APSRTC filed written objections contending that the intermediary places for the portion of the route lying in AP State are not mentioned so as to ascertain the overlapping portion of AP Schemes. He also contended that the route does not find place in the inter-state agreement as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'R. Venkatesham Chetty Vs. State of Karnataka' reported in AIR 2004 SC 659. 10. After hearing the parties and perusing the records, particularly in view of the specific objections raised by the representatives of the KSRTC and APSRTC as mentioned above, the respondent took a decision to get a fresh joint route survey report to discern the true facts. 11. In the case of P.N. Anitha (supra), the Division Bench of this Court, while considering the case of an operator calling in question, the orders passed by the Learned Single Judge in remanding the matter to the KSTA reserving liberty to the operator to make an appropriate application before the KSTA, though it was contended that there was already a joint route survey report, held as under: "3. In the light of the respective submission made on behalf of the appellant as well as the respondent, the only aspect which requires to be clarified by us is that since the learned Single Judge has already reserved liberty to the appellant/petitioner to make an application, it would be open to the appellant to include in such an application to the KSTA seeking indulgence of the KSTA to rely on the Joint Survey Report which is already there. While considering the said request by the appellant, the KSTA shall decide as to whether the Joint Survey Report would serve the purpose for disposing of the matter. If the same is not sufficient, the KSTA shall proceed to hold the Joint Survey as indicated by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the learned Single Judge." 12. While considering the said request by the appellant, the KSTA shall decide as to whether the Joint Survey Report would serve the purpose for disposing of the matter. If the same is not sufficient, the KSTA shall proceed to hold the Joint Survey as indicated by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the learned Single Judge." 12. On the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Advocate that pursuant to the remand order made by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, there is possibility of joint route survey already conducted and on such submission, this Court held that if the said survey has been conducted pursuant to the order of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the KSTA shall rely on the said report and proceed to dispose of the said application. 13. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bir Bajrang Kumar (supra) has no relevance to the facts of the present case. It is settled legal position that on any objections raised by the rival sector operators in as much as overlapping, the fair procedure to be followed by the KSTA is to get the fresh joint route survey report. Directions issued by the KSTA to Joint Commissioner for Transport, to furnish a fresh joint route survey report is to get satisfied about the routes in question and to overcome the objections raised by the APSRTC and KSRTC. The same cannot be considered as unnecessary. There is no substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petitions being bereft of merits, stand dismissed.