Onkarappa, rep. by his GPA Holder B.M. Siddalingappa vs The Regional Transport Authority and The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—The petitioner, a holder of a stage carriage permit No. 37A/59-60 for the route Bheemasamudra to Shimoga and back and Chitradurga to Rayanahalli and back was issued with a fresh Permit No. 53/98-99. On the expiry of the period of permit, the petitioner''s application for renewal was allowed, by resolution dated 5.7.2004 of the RTA, Chitradurga. Aggrieved by the renewal, the 2nd respondent KSRTC filed Rev. Petition 612/2004 before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, for short KSTAT, contending that the route in question overlaps the notified routes under the Schemes of Shimoga, Bellary and Bangalore was allowed by order dated 28th July, 2005 Annexure B recording a finding that the RTA, despite the objections of the KSRTC, did not obtain a joint route survey to ascertain as to whether the route for which the renewal of permit was sought for, overlapped the notified route, while strangely recording findings that the route overlaps the notified route and that the petitioner was not a saved operator either under the Bangalore, Bellary or Shimoga Pocket Schemes.

In the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sri. Pauli Govis and another etc., , this Court considered all important earlier pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as this Court, having a bearing on its decision making and recorded its summary of findings which in the circumstances is apposite:

That a Scheme duly published u/s 100(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is the law and the violation of the same would be viewed in the same manner as the violation of any other provision, of the statutory;

That in terms of Section 104 of the MV Act, the RTA or the State TA as the case may be is disabled from issuing a permit except in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme published u/s 100(3);

That for a proper exercise of its power u/s 80 of the Act, the authority concerned shall have to keep in view the provisions of Section 104 of the Act and make sure that the grant of permit by it is not in violation of any Scheme duly published u/s 100(3);

That jurisdiction of the authority, to grant a permit would depend upon the existence or non-existence of a Scheme and the total or partial ban it may contain against any private operator, operating a service on a notified route. Determination of these facts, would be essential as the same are jurisdictional facts without which the authority concerned, cannot take a proper decision in the matter;

That the failure on the part of the authority concerned, to address itself to the provisions of Section 104, and to make an order consistent therewith would amount to failure on its part to exercise its jurisdiction properly and an error of law which would vitiate the order passed by it.

Having regard to the aforesaid principles, there is considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the KSTAT fell in serious error in not remitting the proceeding to the RTA for consideration afresh over the renewal, dependent upon the existence or non existence of a scheme and the total or partial ban it may contain against private operators. The KSTAT having no material whatsoever over the overlapping of the routes as noticed by it in paragraph 12 of the order impugned, without securing relevant material regarding the said fact, or that the schemes did provide for a total ban of private operators recorded findings that the petitioner was not a saved operator under any of the Schemes. I say so because the RTA did not collate material over the overlapping of the route with the notified route under the said Schemes or whether the Schemes did contain a total or partial ban, essential for the exercise of its jurisdiction. The powers of the KSTAT and that of the RTA though coextensive, nevertheless, the KSTAT having concluded that the RTA collated no material over the said jurisdictional fact, it was incumbent on its part to have remitted the proceeding to the RTA for fresh consideration and not to decide for itself that the petitioner was not a saved operator under any of the Schemes.

The fallacy in the reasoning of the KSTAT lies in its superficial and cursory nature of consideration undertaken therein, without reference to relevant material by which RTA could have exercised its jurisdiction to renew the stage carriage permit. The order impugned is shown to suffer from legal infirmities, occasioning grave injustice to the petitioner, calling for interference.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 28.7.2005, Annexure ''B'' of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal in so far as it relates to R.P. Nos. 612/2004 is quash and the proceeding remitted to the RTA for consideration afresh, after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, in the light of the principles laid down in the case of Pauli Govis, (supra).