K. JAGADEESH REDDY Vs. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER had filed application for grant of interstate stage carriage permit on the route Thirupathi to Bangalore before the concerned Authority in the state of Andhra Pradesh. The State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh, granted permit on 07.02.2004, subject to counter signature by the State Transport Authority, Karnataka. The application filed by the petitioner for counter signature was objected by the 2nd respondent -KSRTC contending that the route overlapped the notified routes of BTS, Bangalore and Kolar scheme, for about 250 Kms. Reliance was placed on the prohibition contained in Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act for granting permit/counter signature on the notified route.

(2.) THE State Transport Authority, Karnataka, granted counter signature on 15.09.2004. This was challenged before the KSTAT, Bangalore. R.P. No. 659/2003 was filed by G.V. Chandrashekar - 3rd respondent herein, whereas the 2nd respondent -KSRTC filed R.P. No. 537/2003. By order dated 12.01.2005, the Tribunal has allowed both the revision petitions and has set aside the counter signature for the stage carriage permit No. 1/STA/2004 valid upto 23.03.2009. The Tribunal has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.N. Raghunatha Reddy Vs. Mysore State Transport Authority - : (1970) 1 SCC 341, to hold that as the petitioner herein was not a saved operator under Kolar Pocket Scheme or modified Kolar Pocket Scheme and was not a saved operator as on 27.05.2003, counter signature granted for the portion of the route lying in the State of Karnataka was without jurisdiction and against the ruling of the Apex Court. The Tribunal has also held that the entire stretch of the route from State Border upto Bangalore overlapped the approved Kolar scheme as modified from 27.05.2003. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, these writ petitions are filed.

(3.) MR . Prakash Shetty, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent -KSRTC has strongly refuted the contentions of the petitioner. He has urged that validity of Kolar Pocket Scheme has been upheld, therefore it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the said scheme is not valid as it does not have prior approval of the Central Government. Reliance is placed by him on the judgment in the case of T.N. Raghunatha Reddy Vs. Mysore State Transport Authority - : AIR 1971 SC 1662 (para 15). He refers to Section 98 of the Act to urge that it gives overriding effect to the provisions of Chapter -VI and to the notifications and scheme framed thereunder.