R VENKATESHAM CHETTY Vs. SECRETARY KSTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 2-8-1985 passed by the 1st respondent in No. STA 6/ CS 83/85-86 (Annexure-E). He has also prayed for quashing the endorsement of countersignature bearing No. STA 6 CS 83/85-86 dated 2-7-1985 produced as Annexure-F.

(2.) The facts necessary to decide the contentions raised by both the sides, are as follows : 2.1) The petitioner is operating a stage carriage service on the route between Palamaner and K.G.F. via Nangili, Mulabagal, Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation has published a Draft Scheme No. 8/81 in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette Extraordinary, dated 18-4-1981 pertaining to the route Thirupathi to Bangalore via Chittoor, Palamaner, Nangali, Mulbagal, Kolar. 2.2) There is also an agreement entered into between the State of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh under Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It is published in the Gazette of both the States in the year 1975. A supplementary Agreement is also entered into between two States and it is published in the Gazette of both the States on 26th December, 1983. One of the routes included in the supplemental agreement is route No. 37 Chittoor to K.G.F. via Palamaner, Nangli and Mulbagal to be operated by the State of Andhra Pradesh. 2.3) After publication of the aforesaid draft scheme, the Vice-Chairman and the Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'APSRTC') by the letter dated 3-7-1985 has requested the Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary, State Transport Authority, Hyderabad, for grant of a temporary permit under Section 68F (1-A) read with Section 62 of the Act. The Joint Transport Commissioner by the order dated 30-7-1985 has granted the temporary permit under Section 68F (1-A) of the Act, on the aforesaid Route - Chittoor to K.G.F. via Nangli and Mulbagal, valid till the approval or modification of the Draft Scheme 8/81 under Section 68D of the Act, at single point tax to meet the increased traffic needs on the route in question. Pursuant to it, the permit is also issued as per Annexure-C. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent has made an application before the 1st respondent for grant of countersignature. The 1st respondent by the impugned order dated 2-7-1985 (Annexure-F) has granted the countersignature. It is the validity of this order which is challenged in this petition.

(3.) It is contended by Sri Achar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the route in respect of which the temporary permit under Section 68F (1-A) of the Act, is granted is not covered by the Draft Scheme 88/1; therefore, the permit under Section 68F (1A) of the Act, could not have been granted. Hence, it is submitted that the countersignature granted to such permit is invalid in law. It is also contended that the temporary permit issued under Section 68F (1-A) of the Act, is not required to be countersigned because it is issued under Chapter IV-A of the Act whereas the provisions of countersignature are found in Chapter IV of the Act; that the Secretary, Karnataka State Transport Authority has not been empowered under Rule 94 (2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') to grant countersignature to the temporary permit issued under Section 68F (1-A) of the Act; therefore, the order granting counter signature is without jurisdiction; that the permit in question cannot at all be considered to be the one issued under Section 62 of the Act, because as per the order passed by the 2nd respondent, it is clear that the permit in question is granted under Section 68F (1-A) of the Act; that there cannot be any blending of the permit both under Section 68F (1-A) and Section 62 of the Act; that the timings assigned to the permit in question issued in favour of the 3rd respondent affect the service of the petitioner.