SYED AMEERAJAN Vs. SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a transferee of a stage carriage permit bearing no. 15/65-66 authorised to operate on an Inter-State route from chikkaballapura to Hindupura and back performing four single trips per day, aggrieved by the order dated 17-03-2007 in R. P. No. 644/ 2006 Annexure-"d" of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate tribunal, has preferred this Writ petition.

(2.) SRI. B. R. Sundararaja Gupta, Learned Counsel for the petitioner advances the following contentions: the grant of additional trips and additional vehicles in respect of the permit of a saved operator under the Kolar Pocket scheme was held to be permissible by two decisions of a Full Bench of this court and three decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the controversy brought about by the opinions rendered by the Andhra pradesh High Court and Chennai High Court in that regard, is a matter pending before a constitutional bench of the Apex Court. According to the learned counsel, the constitutional bench, having taken note of the controversy in respect of grant of additional trips on double point tax basis in the case of Smt. VUAYAMMAL, by order dated 27-11 -2006 permitted the operator to operate services by maintaining status quo and a Division Bench of this Court in identical circumstances in Writ Appeal No. 3231/2005, granted an order of stay permitting the operator to operate the services. The learned counsel hastens to add that the KSTAT, without awaiting the decision of the Constitution bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and in the light of the decision reported in 1995 Supreme Court Cases Supplement Page 434, fell in error in setting aside the grant of additional trips by the State Transport authority.

(3.) PER contra, Sri. S. V. Krishnaswamy, Learned Counsel for the contesting 2nd respondent reiterates the contention advanced in the statement of objections dated 2-4-2007. In addition, learned counsel points out to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of ASHWANI KUMAR AND ANOTHER vs REGIONAL transport AUTHORITY, BIKANER AND ANOTHER which view was affirmed by a larger bench of three Judges of the Supreme court in the case of A. VENKATAKRISHNAN vs STATE transport AUTHORITY, KERALA. According to the Learned counsel, the Apex Court, declared the law that additional trips cannot be granted on nationalized routes, more so in the face of existing inter-State Agreement prescribing the number of trips to be operated on the notified route. Learned counsel places reliance upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of KARNATAKA STATE ROAD transport CORPORATION AND OTHERS vs Smt. R. MAHESHWARJ AND OTHERS' in support of the contention that grant of variation of the conditions of stage carriage permit held by a saved operator under the Kolar Pocket Scheme / Bellary Pocket scheme, by increasing the number of trips or number of vehicles without a reciprocal agreement between the States, is not permissible. Learned counsel hastens to add that in the facts and circumstances of this case, there being an interstate agreement between the states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, in respect of the route in question, limiting the operation of services to two trips for the saved operators, the KSTAT was fully justified in setting aside the variation of condition of permit by increasing two more additional trips while renewing the permit.