DAKSHINAMURTHY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in these two petitions, they are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The petitioner in WP. 853 of 1976 is the owner of the motor vehicle bearing No. MDB 9995. The petitioner in WP.1554 of 1976 is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KRE 239.

(3.) In the year 1974, the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation which was the State Transport undertaking in the State of Karnataka, published a draft scheme under section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), proposing to run contract carriage services throughout the State of Karnataka to the exclusion of all private operators. A large number of persons filed objections to the said scheme. The hearing of the said case which was pending before the State Govt was being postponed from time to time. Ultimately, the entire proceeding initiated by the State Transport undertaking abated on 30-1-1976 by reason of the provisions contained in section 30 of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1976 (Karnataka Ordinance 7 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance). It would appear that during the pendency of those proceedings before the State Govt, the State Transport undertaking had made applications for the grant of temporary contract carriage permits under sub-section 1A) of Sec. 68F of the Act, before the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore. Even though the said applications made by the State Transport undertaking were pending, the RTA proceeded to issue temporary permits in respect of the vehicles referred to above under sub-sec (1C) of section 68F of the Act. The applications made by the State Transport undertaking were rejected. Aggrieved by the resolution of the RTA to grant the temporary permits in respect of the said vehicles, the State Transport undertaking filed writ petitions before this Court. WP.7308/75 was filed against the permit granted in respect of vehicle MDB 9995 and WP.7307/75 was filed against the permit granted in respect of vehicle KRE 239. On 9-1-1976, an interim order was passed by this Court at the instance of the State Transport undertaking staying the operation of the permits referred to above. By reason of the said interim order, the grantees ceased to operate the vehicles in question as contract carriages with effect from 9-1-1976. The writ petitions filed by the State Transport undertaking were heard on 10-2-1976. Two contentions wars urged by the learned Counsel who appeared for the State Transport under-taking in those petitions; (i) The RTA was in error in granting temporary permits under sub-section 1C) of S. 68F of the Act in respect of the said vehicles when the applications made by the State Transport undertaking under sub-sec (1A) of section 68F were pending; and (ii) That the RTA had no jurisdiction to grant temporary permits in respect of the vehicles in question to operate on routes or areas lying outside the region over which the RTA had jurisdiction. This Court, by its order dated 10-2-1976 allowed the said writ petitions along with some others in which similar contentions had been raised and quashed the permits issued in respect of the above vehicles and some others.