R. VENKATESHAM CHETTY Vs. KARNATAKA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , there is an inter-State route, known as Srinivasapur-B. Kothakotta (hereinafter referred to as "the inter-State route"). The said route lies partially in the State of Karnataka and partially in the State of Andhra Pradesh. On 1.9.1975 a reciprocal agreement was entered into between the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, whereunder it was stipulated that from the Karnataka side two State carriage permits, having one return trip each shall be granted. The said reciprocal agreement was published in the gazette of the respective States. It is not disputed that the appellant herein was granted a permit on the inter-State route from the side of Karnataka and subsequently, one further permit was granted to the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") having one return trip each. Subsequently, the Corporation framed a Scheme under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short "the repealed Act") for a portion of the inter-State route falling within the State of Karnataka which was subsequently approved by the State Government of Karnataka. The notified Scheme provided that the existing operators on the inter-State route shall be allowed to operate their vehicles, subject to the corridor restriction on the notified route. Subsequently, the appellant herein submitted an application before the Karnataka State Transport Authority for variation of the conditions of permit by granting one more additional return trip on the inter-State route. This was objected to by the Corporation. However, the said objection was overruled and the appellant was granted one more additional return trip on the inter-State route. Aggrieved, an appeal was filed by the Corporation, but the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the Corporation filed a writ petition challenging the order granting additional return trip to the appellant. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition. However, in the course of the judgment, it was observed that the appellant shall not pick up or set down passengers between the notified portion of the inter-State route, and also pay taxes. The Corporation, thereafter, filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench of that Court, which was allowed. Consequently, the grant of additional return trip to the appellant was set aside. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition.

(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 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 States 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.

(3.) Consequently, we do not find any merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.