K. B. VITTAL RAI Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these petitions involve a common question, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment.

(2.) Learned counsel Sri. Thampan Thomson, appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 26263 - 26264/2015 contended that the order of the learned single Judge of High Court of Kerala makes it clear that Sub-clauses (1)(a) and (1)(b) of clause 1 of the 4th supplementary inter-State agreement is ultra vires of the Act and unconstitutional. All the stage carriage operators including STUs are entitled to apply for the permit or seek renewal of their permits, if their routes are covered by the inter-State agreements. Hence, renewal made by the STA, Bangalore, is in accordance with the Judgment of the High Court of Kerala. The learned counsel submitted that the permits are covered in the inter-State agreement of 1976, but the Appellate Tribunal without applying its mind has set-aside the renewal made in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the two factors viz., name of the route and trip of the permit are relevant to analyse whether the permits granted to the petitioners were saved under the 1976 agreement entered into between the State of Kerala and State of Karnataka. Petitioners are operating the services with the valid permit from 1992 up to 2013. Placing reliance on Sec. 88(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act for short), it was submitted that a permit granted or countersigned by the State Transport Authority shall be valid in the whole State or in such regions within the State as may be specified in the permit notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of Sec. 88. Learned counsel further placing reliance on Sec. 88(5) and (6) of the Act contended that the Judgment of the Honourable single Judge of the High Court of Kerala was carried in Appeal by the State Transport Undertakings of Karnataka and Kerala and the same came to be dismissed. Further the same was challenged before the Honourable Apex Court which came to be dismissed. Thus, the order of the learned single Judge of High Court of Kerala is confirmed. Learned counsel submitted that the route as well as trip of the permit are covered and saved under Sl.No.11 of Appendix-III or Sl.No.7 of Appendix-V of the agreement.

(3.) Learned counsel contended that according to Sec. 2(38) of the Act 'route' means a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another. The route/line of travel mentioned in the regular permits of the petitioners and the route/line of travel mentioned in the item No. 7 of Appendix-V of the 1976 agreement are one and the same. Therefore, the routes covering Mangalore to Kasargod on which the petitioners were operating is covered by 1976 inter-State agreement and hence, valid and to be renewed. The minimum and maximum trips for permit were also mentioned in Item No. 7 of Appendix-V for joint operation of operators registered from States of Kerala and Karnataka. The number of permits to be issued in different region is to be decided by the State Transport Authorities and not by the State Government. The statement, object and reasons given in Chapter I of the Act, more appropriately clause (e) of Sec. 3 specifies simplification of procedure and policy liberalizations for private sector operations in the road transport field. Similarly clause (g) of Sec. 5 provides liberalized schemes for grant of stage carriage permits on non-nationalised routes. Hence, the intention of the legislature was to simplify and liberalise the matters relating to private sector operations and stage carriage permits on non-nationalized routes rather than excluding private operators by executing inter-State agreements.