Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Honniah and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/27TH PHALGUNA, 1937** ## **WA.No. 246 of 2010** **-------------------------------** ## **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07-09-2009 IN WP(C) 1483/2008.** **..........** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **-------------------------------------** **KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MANGALORE DIVISION, MANGALORE, SRI.P.B.KURMBIAH, S/O.BHEEMIAH, `BEJAI', MANGALORE.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT)** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:** **------------------------------------------------** ## **1. HONNIAH, S/O.P.LOKAYYA,** **KIRAN NIVAS, NEAR RAGHAVAENDRA MUTT, KALLARE PUTHUR D.K.** **2. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (KERALA), ERNAKULAM.** **3. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (KERALA) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **4. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **--2--** **--2--** ## **WA.No. 246 of 2010** **----------------------------** ## ***ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED** **5. SMT.ARUNA SRIDHAR, ‘SHARANYA’, LAXMI NAGAR, BIJAL, MANGALORE, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M.KRISHNA BHAT, S/O.BHIM BHAT, ARYAPPU VILLAGE AND POST, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.KARNATAKA STATE.** **ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 5.10.2010 IN IA.707/2010.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY** **R2 & R3 BY SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER SMT.GIRIJA GOPAL R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC ADDL R5 BY ADV. SRI.A.INEES** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** **WA.No. 246 of 2010** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETING OF THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KERALA HELD ON 21.8.2003.** **ANNEXURE A2 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.287/2002 DATED 24.2.2004 PUBLISHED IN (2004) 11 SCC 207.** **ANNEXURE A3 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.840/2007 (MV), WA.NO.851/2007(MV) DATED 15.1.2009 PASSED BY THE COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE.** **ANNEXURE A4 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.7.2009 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.6775/2009 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE APEX COURT.** **ANNEXURE A5 : TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.HTD 42 TM1 96, BANGALORE DATED 20.8.2001 BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & G.O(P) NO.11/2005/TRAN. DATED 7.6.2005(SRO NO.596/2005) ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.** **ANNEXURE A6: NIL** - **ANNEXURE A7 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.KST/CO/LAW(ROUTE)/447/2015-16 DATED 2.3.2016 SENT BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER (ROUTE), KSRTC BANGALORE.** - **ANNEXURE A8 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN (2004(13) SCC 659) R.VENKATESHAN SHETTY VS.KARNATAKA STATE AND OTHERS.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ----------------------------------------------** - **ANNEXURE R5(A): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY DATED 29/30.4.1986.** - **ANNEXURE R5(B): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY DATED 23.4.2005.** - **ANNEXURE R5(C): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECRETARY, KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY DATED 6.10.2005.** - **ANNEXURE R5(D): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY DATED 5.2.2005.** - **ANNEXURE R5(E): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,KERALA DATED 8.9.2005.** - **ANNEXURE R5(F): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.4.2007 SENT BY THE SECRETARY, KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY TO THE SECRETARY, STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KERALA. --2--** ## **--2--** ## **WA.No. 246 of 2010** **----------------------------** **ANNEXURE R5(G) : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WPC.NO.23488/2008 DATED 2.4.2009. ANNEXURE R5(H): TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KERALA IN M.V.A.A.NOS.577/2008 AND 842/2007 DATED 27.5.2009. ANNEXURE R5(I): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WPC.NO.3771/2010 DATED 24.3.2010. ANNEXURE R5(J): TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT OF COUNTER SIGNATURE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT'S PERMIT BY THE SECRETARY, STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KERALA DATED 13.8.2010.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **mbr/** ## **ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.A.No.246 of 2010 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 17[th] day of March 2016 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **Shaffique, J** This writ appeal is filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'Karnataka SRTC') challenging the judgment dated 07/09/2009 in W.P.C.No.1483/2008. The writ petition was filed by the appellant herein challenging Ext.P3, an order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short 'STAT') in M.V.A.A.No.373/2004. Ext.P3 order was passed on an appeal filed by the 1[st] respondent herein challenging the refusal on the part of the State Transport Authority (for short 'STA'), Kerala to countersign an Inter State permit which is granted by the Karnataka State Transport Authority (for short 'Karnataka STA'). STAT allowed the application and set aside the order of the STA and directed to countersign as claimed by the 1[st] respondent. 2. The main contention urged by the appellant/writ petitioner was that as per Ext.P1 Inter State agreement between the States of Karnataka and Kerala, at Serial No.8 in Appendix III W.A.No.246/2010 2 regarding the route allocated between Kasargod and Puttur only two round trips are indicated. According to them, two of such round trips have been operated by Karnataka SRTC and one by a private operator. In the meantime, the 1[st] respondent approached for variation by including one more trip. The Karnataka STA allowed the same. However, when countersignature was sought for, the STA, by order dated 21/12/2005, rejected the same on the ground that “ _On verification it is found that there are three round trips allowed to be operated by Karnataka based operators on the route Kasargod-Puthur but all this trips have been allocated to other operators and hence there is no vacancy at all. Moreover, according to the third Supplemental Agreement of 1998 entered into between the two States, any vacancy that exists under joint operation or under any other appendices or Annexure had to be operated only by the respective State Transport Undertakings._ ” The STA, therefore observed that the grant of one additional trip on the route in the alleged vacancy of a private operator is against the agreement of 1976 and 1998. Hence the application for counter signature was rejected. W.A.No.246/2010 3 3. The learned Single Judge observed that when the STAT found that the allotment of one trip of defaulter was with reference to the defaulted service of State Transport Undertaking, it does not violate the Inter State agreement. 4. While impugning the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the direction issued by the STAT was totally against the Ext.P1 Inter State agreement which provides only three round trips of which two are operated by the appellant and one by a private operator. It is stated that, unless the agreement is modified, it may not be possible for permitting the variation as has now been permitted by the STAT. Learned Counsel also produced additional documents along with I.A.No.349/2016, Annexure A7, the letter dated 02/03/2016 issued by the appellant to the learned counsel, wherein it is stated that there is no vacancy under Sl.No.8 of Appendix III of the agreement between the States of Karnataka and Kerala. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent submits that the grant of variation has been approved by the Karnataka STA and though the matter was challenged by the appellant before the STAT as well as before the W.A.No.246/2010 4 High Court, the same resulted in dismissal. The order passed by the High Court of Karnataka on 26/08/2015 in W.P.C.No.25553/2011 is also produced. A perusal of the said order would indicate that the dismissal of the appellant's case was on the ground of delay, which was not interfered by the High Court. In fact, there was no decision on merits. It is submitted that the matter had been approved by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.5344-5345/2011 of the Karnataka High Court. The said appeals were disposed of holding that in the event, the writ petition filed by the appellant in W.P.C.No.25583/2011 is allowed, automatically any renewal granted in favour of the 2[nd] respondent stands cancelled. In fact, the appeal was filed against the orders passed in W.P.C.No.6620-6621/2011 dated 17/03/2011. As already indicated, dismissal of W.P.C.No.25583/2011 on the ground that there was no reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal, was not a decision on merits. 6. That apart, as far as State of Kerala is concerned, STA has to consider the application for counter signature based on the available materials and based on the agreement between the States of Karnataka and Kerala. Once it is found on the basis of W.A.No.246/2010 5 Ext.P1 that there is no vacancy for variation of permit, the authority was justified in not granting the counter signature. The STAT, while considering the matter, did not go into such question whereas the STAT proceeded on the basis that a vacancy exists. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge had not correctly appreciated the entire factual circumstances involved in the grant of permit. It is also relevant to note that before the STAT, the appellant herein was not a party to the proceedings and what was challenged is only the rejection of counter signature by the STA. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation also placed reliance on the judgment in **R.Venkatesham Chetty v. Karnataka State and Others** _[(2004) 13 SCC 659]_ wherein the Supreme Court had occasion to consider almost similar issues and it is held at paragraph 2 as under: _“2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the view taken by the High Court was erroneous inasmuch as the appellant had a valid permit, the conditions of which could be varied by adding one more trip. We do not find_ W.A.No.246/2010 6 _any substance in the argument. Section 63 of the repealed Act provides that no vehicle can be allowed to ply on an inter-State route unless there is a reciprocal agreement between the two State providing for numbers of vehicles and trips to be operated on the inter-State route by two or more States and published in the respective gazettes. It is not disputed that the said agreement provided for two permits having one return trip each from each State and since there were already two return trips being operated from the side of Karnataka, there was no scope for further grant of an additional return trip. For these reasons, the appellant could not have been granted variation in permits by granting additional return trip on the inter-State route.”_ Having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, we are of the view that the STA was justified in rejecting the counter signature. 9. Hence we are of the view that the writ appeal is liable to be allowed setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. W.A.No.246/2010 7 In the result, i) The writ appeal is allowed ii) The judgment dated 07/09/2009 in W.P.C.No.1483/2008 is set aside. Iii) Ext.P3 order in M.V.A.A.No.373/2004 is set aside and the order passed by the STA is confirmed. Parties shall bear the respective costs. (sd/-) **(ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE)** (sd/-) **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** True Copy PA to Judge jsr/18/03/16