J.S. MANJUNATH Vs. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common issues are involved in these petitions, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The petitioners are the existing saved operators under the Kolar Pocket Scheme, operating stage carriage services. The States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh entered into an inter-state agreement as contemplated under Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, now replaced under Section 88 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) dated 1.10.1975, where it was provided for two vehicles to be operated to perform two round trips per day. Based on the same, the petitioners filed an application for variation of the conditions of the permit by way of increase of vehicles with increase of round trips to be operated. The said applications were considered by the 1st respondent and granted variation as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, respondent-corporation preferred appeals before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short). The Tribunal allowed the appeals, set -aside the order of variation of permits. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel Sri.B.R.S.Gupta, appearing for the petitioners would submit that, during the pendency of the appeals before the Tribunal, Kolar Pocket Scheme was modified vide Notification dated 7.11.2003, by virtue of which the petitioners are saved to operate the service. The petitioners were granted permits and variation was also granted with additional vehicles and trips, prior to the coming into force of the modified Kolar Pocket Scheme, albeit this fact was brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the order of variation of condition of permit was set-aside without addressing the relevant issue regarding the modified Kolar Pocket Scheme. The variation of the condition of the permit was granted by way of increase of trips with inclusion of vehicles and the same being in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and two decisions of the Full Bench of this Court which was holding the field, the Tribunal applying the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gajaraj Singh -v- The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others, AIR 1997 SC 412 and G.T.Venkatasway Reddy -v- State Transport Authority and others, (2016) 8 SCC 402, not considering the same in the right perspective in the context of the present cases, set-aside the grant of variation. The modified Kolar Pocket Scheme was the subject matter of writ petitions/writ appeals, further challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.A.Lingareddy -v- Karnataka State Transport Authority, 2015 AIR SCW 279, whereby the matters were remanded to the State government with certain terms to reconsider the same afresh. Pursuant to which the State government issued the notification dated 5.8.2015, set-aside the modified Kolar Pocket Scheme. The said notification dated 5.8.2015 was challenged by various operators before this Court which was considered in a batch of petitions in W.P.Nos.49713-720/2015 and connected matters and by a common order dated 3.5.2017, the notification dated 5.8.2015 was quashed and the matters were remanded to the State Government/Tribunal for adjudication. In these circumstances, these writ petitions being identical, 3 deserves to be remanded to the Tribunal for consideration afresh in terms of the judgment and order of this court dated 3.5.2017. It was further contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.T.Venkatasway Reddy (supra) has categorically held that the effect of Section 68-FF could be altered/modified/cancelled only in the manner as provided for under Section 68-E of M.V.Act, 1939 and in no other manner. That means, the petitioners are saved by the modified Kolar Pocket Scheme. This relevant aspect was lost sight of by the Tribunal while allowing the writ petitions filed by the corporation. Learned counsel placing reliance on G.T.Venkatasway Reddy's case (supra) submits that the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench in the judgment supports the case of the petitioners. Accordingly, he seeks for setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal and remand the matters to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, in the light of the judgment in G.T.Venkatasway Reddy's case (supra) and the judgment of this court in W.P.Nos. 49713-720/2015 and connected matters.