S.A. Wahab v. Kerala State Transport Authority and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/28TH POUSHA 1938** **WP(C).No. 2019 of 2014 (B) ---------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **-------------** **S.A.WAHAB, PROPRIETOR, MEHBOOB MOTOR SERVICE, K.P.R. RAO ROAD, KASARAGODE, PIN-671 121.** **BY ADVS.SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS SRI.SHAFFIE THOMAS** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** **1. THE KERALA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRANS TOWERS VAZHUTHAKAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014** **2. THE SECRETARY,** - **KERALA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRANS TOWERS VAZHUTHAKAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.** **3. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **4. THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SARIGA BHAVAN BANGALORE, KARNATAKA.** **5. THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BANGALORE-1, KARNATAKA** **6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, SECRETARIAT, BANGALORE-1, KARNATAKA.** **msv/** **-2-** **-2-** ## **WP(C).No. 2019 of 2014 (B)** ## **---------------------------** **7. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** *** ADDITIONAL R8 IMPLEADED** **8. SMT.SULOCHANA DAMODAR, DELILGHT PHARMACY, P.O. UPPALA, KASARAGOD - 695 001.** *** IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.10.2.2014 IN IA.1866/2014.** **R1, R2 & R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MABLE C.KURIAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT) R8 BY ADVS. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SRI.R.HARISHANKAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** ## **WP(C).No. 2019 of 2014 (B) ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **-----------------------** |**EXT.P1 -**|**TRUE COPY OF THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORT AGREEMENT IN**| |---|---| ||**1963 BETWEEN THE STATE OF KERALA AND THE GOVERNMENT**| ||**OF MYSORE**| |**EXT.P2 -**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MYSORE STA ON**| ||**16-12-1972**| |**EXT.P3 -**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 05-12-1973**| |**EXT.P4 -**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS DATED 31-01-1974 GRANTING**| ||**PERMIT NO.5/STA/INT/74 AND NO.7/STA/INT/74.**| |**EXT.P5 -**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D4 13540/STA/74**| ||**DATED 25-07-1974**| |**EXT.P6 -**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.HD 5 MVA 57,**| ||**BANGALORE DATED 31-10-1958**| |**EXT.P7 -**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE 1976 INTERSTATE**| ||**AGREEMENT PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE**| |**EXT.P8 -**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**ON 14-01-2009**| |**EXT.P9 -**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25-02-2011 IN**| ||**WP NO.13211/2008 (MV)**| |**EXT.P10 -**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14-05-2009**| |**EXT.P11 -**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 24-09-2011 OF THE**| ||**2ND RESPONDENT**| |**EXT.P12 -**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENTS DATED 24-09-2011 OF THE**| ||**2ND RESPONDENT**| |**EXT.P13 -**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15-11-2013 IN**| ||**WPC.NO.8210/2013 AND 8773/2013**| |**EXT.P14 -**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORADUMS DATED 20-10-2011**| ||**FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE STAT, KERALA**| |**EXT.P15 -**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31-10-2013 IN MVAAS**| ||**NO.371/2011 AND 372/2011**| **msv/** **-2-** **-2-** **WP(C).No. 2019 of 2014 (B) --------------------------** **EXT.P16 TRUE COPY OF THE 1976 INTERSTATE AGREEMENT WITH COVERING LETTER DTD.25.6.1976.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE DTD.30.6.1976.** **EXT.R3(b): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.46967/2012 OF THE HIGH COURT KARNATAKA.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **msv/** ## **P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.** ## **-----------------------------------------------** **W.P.(C) No.2019 of 2014 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th ] day of January, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is a private stage carriage operator. He has been operating interstate stage carriage services on the routes Thalangara-Mangalore and Parassinikadavu-Mangalore covering the States of Kerala and Karnataka from the year 1972 onwards on double point tax basis. The interstate permits issued to the petitioner expired during 2009. The petitioner therefore applied to the State Transport Authority for renewal of the permits and the State Transport Authority granted the renewal sought for by the petitioner for the periods up to 2014 on condition that the petitioner shall obtain counter signatures on the permits from the State Transport Authority of the State of Karnataka. According to the W.P.(C) No.2019 of 2014 -2- petitioner, in the light of Ext P6 notification issued by the Government of Karnataka, the petitioner is entitled to get the permits renewed on single point tax basis. He, therefore, challenged the orders granting renewal of the permits before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in two separate revision petitions. 2. In the meanwhile, the petitioner applied to the State Transport Authority of the State of Karnataka for counter signatures. The State Transport Authority of the State of Karnataka, however, rejected the applications preferred by the petitioner in this connection on the ground that the routes in respect of which the petitioner has obtained interstate state carriage permits are not covered by the interstate agreements entered into between the States of Karnataka and Kerala in the year 1976. Though the petitioner challenged the decision of the State Transport Authority of the State of Karnataka before W.P.(C) No.2019 of 2014 -3- the State Transport Appellate Tribunal of the State of Karnataka, the decision rendered by the State Transport Authority of the State of Karnataka was confirmed by the Tribunal. The petitioner challenged the decision of the said Tribunal before the High Court of Karnataka and the writ petitions preferred by the petitioner in this connection were dismissed. 3. Later, when the revision petitions preferred by the petitioner claiming the benefit of one point tax came up for consideration, the Tribunal took the view that since the petitioner could not secure counter signatures for the renewal of the permits obtained by him, it is unnecessary to decide the entitlement of the petitioner for one point tax benefit. Consequently, the revision petitions were dismissed. Exhibit P15 is the common order passed by the Tribunal in this connection. Exhibit P15 is under challenge in this writ petition. -4- W.P.(C) No.2019 of 2014 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation as also the learned counsel for the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner was operating the services during the period in which the 1963 agreement entered into between the States of Kerala and Karnataka was in operation, counter signatures sought by the petitioner would not have been rejected on the ground that the routes are not covered by 1976 agreement. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is held by this Court in Ext P13 judgment that the existing operators are entitled to regular permits if the routes are covered by any of the interstate agreements. According the learned counsel, in the light of the Ext.P13 judgment, he is entitled to counter signatures and the matter is -5- W.P.(C) No.2019 of 2014 pending before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the circumstances, is that the Tribunal would not have dismissed the revision petitions preferred by the petitioner on the basis of the orders issued by the State Transport Authority of the State of Karnataka. 6. In **Ashwani Kumar and another** _v._ **Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner and another** [(1998) 8 SCC 364], the Apex Court held that existence of the route reciprocally created by the States by virtue of an interstate agreement between the States is a condition precedent for grant of interstate stage carriage permit. To the specific question put by the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the routes on which the petitioner was operating the services are not specifically mentioned in the 1963 agreement. In the circumstances, in the light of the decision of the Apex W.P.(C) No.2019 of 2014 -6- Court referred above, the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- **P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE** bpr