R RAMA REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In brief, the facts leading to this writ petition are: The petitioner holds an inter-State stage carriage permit on the routs Bangalore to Coimbatore and back to operate with two vehicles during night hours. One of the vehicles - CAM 2962 is of 1981 model. To provide better and uninterrupted service he intended to replace the same in the interest of the travelling public. As such, the petitioner acquired Hindus than Isuzu Chassi. having a wheel base of 199" and has provided a seating capacity of 37+2 having constructed a luxury vehicle on it. The cost of (he vehicle is about Rs. 7 lakhs. He applied for registration of the said vehicle lo the Registering Authority, Bangalore Central, Bangalore. The said application was rejected staling that Rule 151(2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short the 'Rules') prescribes the minimum seating capacity of 48 + 2. The petitioner challenged the said endorsement AnnexUrc-A as well as questioned the validity of Rule 151 in Writ Petition No. 21124 of 1989. During the pendency of the said writ petition an amendment was brought to Rule 151 adding sub-rule (3) stating: " Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (2), the Government, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt any public service vehicle or class of such vehicles used in any specified areas from the provision of the above sub-rules cither generally or for a specified period subject to such conditions as may be specified in that behalf. In view of the said amendment the petitioner made a submission in that writ petition that he would move the State Government to exempt his newly acquired vehicle from application of Rule 151. The said writ petition was disposed of with liberty to him to move the Government. Accordingly, the petitioner moved the Government explaining the circumstances under which exemption was sought and pointed out that the State Transport Undertaking operating long distance inter-State routes during night hours is given exemption. The said application was forwarded to the Commissioner for Transport, who rejected it on two grounds: (1) That granting exemption of application of Rule 151 for providing a lesser seating capacity would be against public interest (2) It would also involve financial loss to the Government. The petitioner again approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 7659 of 1991. This court on 24-6-1991 while disposing of the said writ petition directed the first respondent alone to dispose of the application keeping in mind the principles enunciated in Javare Gowda's case reported in 1991(1) Karnataka Law Journal 126. Since no orders were passed by respondent No. 1 as directed, the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings. During the pendency of the proceedings on 4-11-1991 the respondent has issued the endorsement stating that Vajre Gowda's case has no application to the facts of the case of the petitioner and Rule 151(3) as amended speaks of exemption of public service vehicle to be operated within the specified area refers to taxis and public carriers and not to stage carriage vehicles. The said endorsement is filed at Annexure-E. The validity and correctness of the same is challenged in this writ petition on various grounds.

(2.) The respondent has not filed the statement of objections.

(3.) Sri S.V. Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that Rule 151(3)(d) provides for exemption to any public service vehicle or class of vehicles used in any specified area from the operation of Rule 151(2) and the respondent has committed an error in stating that the word 'area' used in the said sub-rule is applicable only to motor-cabs, maxi-cabs and goods carriages and since stage carriage is a route permit the exemption cannot be given, in that the respondent has overlooked the definition of public service vehicle contained in Section 2(35). He also contended that the respondent has discriminated in considering the application of the petitioner when such exemption is given to the State Transport Undertaking busses to operate with lesser seating capacity than the minimum prescribed under Rule 151 of the Rules. Further, according to the learned counsel the respondent has not taken into consideration that the vehicle is used for a long distance night service route of 375 kms.; during night time the travelling public should have better accommodation, sleeping benefits, privacy and also security. This could be done only by relaxing seats.