AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aravind Kumar, J. - Heard Sri Vijay Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri M.E. Nagesh appearing for petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri D. Ashwathappa, for respondent 1 and Sri Hareesh Bhandary, learned Counsel appearing for State Transport Undertaking (for short ''STU''). By consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, these writ petitions are heard finally and disposed of by this common order.
The Order passed by the State Appellate Tribunal on an interlocutory application I.A. No. 1 in R.P. Nos. 166, 167 and 168 of 2016, dated 10-6-2016 as per Annexures-P, Q and R has been called in question. It is the contention of Sri Vijaya Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners that Appellate Tribunal erred in staying operation of order passed by the State Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as ''STA'') where under petitioners were granted temporary permits even after noticing that Notification dated 5-8-2015 and vires of the Act No. 1 of 2016 is under challenge before this Court and temporary permits granted to petitioners by the STA, was in exercise of power under Section 87(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which indisputedly enables the petitioners to run their buses in the routes which they had been operating for past 40 years and as such Tribunal could not have stayed the operation of order granting temporary permits since Section 87(1)(d) of the Act provides for grant of temporary permits when application for renewal of the permit is kept pending.
Per contra, Sri Hareesh Bhandary, learned Counsel appearing for second respondent-STU and learned Government Advocate would support the impugned order by contending that STA having noticed that there was no interim order in favour of petitioners in the earlier round of litigation, still granted temporary permits under Section 87(l)(d) which fact came to be noticed by the Revisional Authority and as such it has rightly stayed the operation of orders of STA granting permits in favour of the petitioners and there is no error committed by the Tribunal in this regard and hence they pray for rejection of writ petitions.
Having heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of records, it emerges that petitioners were covered by permits granted for the period indicated in respective permits and said permits having come to an end, petitioners applied for renewal by filing an application. It is stated that on account of Government Order dated 5-8-2015 Annexure-E having been passed by 1st respondent dropping the notifications dated 25-10-2002, 27-5-2003 and 9-3-2007 petitioners application has not been considered. Hence, petitioners sought for grant of temporary permits in place of regular permits which came to be granted and it was granted till 21-6-2016. Further application is said to have been filed seeking for grant of temporary permit. Instead of considering said application, 1st respondent cancelled the permits granted in favour of petitioner viz., temporary permits by notice dated 13-4-2016/7-4-2016 vide Annexures-J, K and Rs. and directed the petitioners to stop operation of the vehicles forthwith and also directed the petitioners to surrender the permit to the Authorities for taking further necessary action. This was under challenge in W.P. Nos. 22716 to 22718 of 2016 before this Court and by interim order dated 20-4-2016 said notices came to be stayed and respondent therein i.e. 1st respondent herein was directed to consider the applications of petitioners for grant of temporary permits in accordance with law. Accordingly 1st respondent considered the applications of petitioners for grant of temporary permits and by Orders dated 21-4-2016 Annexures-N1, N2 and N3 granted temporary permits in place of regular permits.
In the meanwhile, these petitioners have also challenged the Government Order dated 5-8-2015 which has been relied upon by the State as well as STU to defeat the claims of petitioners in W.P. Nos. 51714, 34522 to 34533 and 34666 to 34670 of 2015. During this interregnum period, Act 1 of 2016 having been introduced by the State, it came to be challenged by petitioners in W.P. Nos. 18122 to 18125 and 18127 of 2015 before this Court and the operation of the Karnataka State Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 (Act 1 of 2016) has been stayed and matters are pending before this Court.
As noticed herein above, petitioners who claim to be operating by virtue of permits granted in their favour had submitted applications for grant of temporary permits as permissible under Section 87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Taking into consideration that petitioners had already challenged the Government notification dated 5-8-2015 (Annexure-E herein), as well as validity of Act 1 of 2016 as noticed herein above, STA was of the view that petitioners would be entitled to operate by virtue of permits already possessed by'' them and as such temporary permits came to be granted vide Orders dated 21-4-2016 Annexures-N1, N2 and N3. Challenging the said grant of temporary permits, the STU has filed revision petitions before Revisional Authority in R.P. Nos. 166 to 168 of 2016 and an interlocutory application IA No. 1 came to be filed by second respondent-STU for stay of orders granting temporary permits in favour of petitioners. The Revisional Authority'' instead of disposing of revision petitions, on merits, by taking into consideration the fact that Government Order dated 5-8-2015 as well as the constitutional validity of Act 1 of 2016 is being pending before this Court has proceeded to stay the order granting temporary permits in favour of petitioners.
In view of the fact that operation of the notification dated 5-8-2015 as well as operation of Act 1 of 2016 having been stayed by this Court, Tribunal/Revisional Authority'' should not have undertaken the exercise of staying the operation of the order passed by STA granting temporary permits in favour of petitioners and as such on this short ground petitioners would succeed. Hence the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petitions are hereby allowed.
(ii) Order dated 9-6-2016 (wrongly mentioned as dated 10-6-2016 in prayer column) passed on I.A. No. 1 in R.P. Nos. 166 to 168 of 2016 Annexures-P, Q and R are hereby quashed.
(iii) It is made clear that Revisional Authority without being influenced by any observations made by this Court in the order in question shall proceed to dispose of revisions petitions on merits and in accordance with law.