G R NARAYANA MURTHY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the Karnataka State Transport Authority, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the K S T.A.), from considering the applications of the petitioners at the meeting to be held on 23rd, 24th and 25th July, 1981 or at any subsequent meeting until the State Government renders its decision on the proposed modification of the Kolar Pocket Scheme.

(2.) The contentions of the petitioners are that the State Government has in exercise of its power under sub-section (2) of Section 68E of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), has proposed to modify the Kolar Pocket Scheme by the Notification dated 25-2-1980; that if the notification as proposed is approved and published as per sub-section (3) of Section 68D of the Act, the applications filed by the petitioners will have to be considered on merits and therefore, it is contended that it is necessary to postpone consideration of the applications filed by the petitioners; that as the KSTA is proceeding with the applications, it is necessary to prohibit the KSTA from considering the applications. It appears to me that these contentions are devoid of merit.

(3.) It is not in dispute and it cannot at all be disputed that the approved scheme of Kolar Pocket is in operation and will continue to be in operation unti! it is modified. Every transport authority including the KSTA is bound to enforce the Scheme. Section 68FF of the Act specifically prohibits them by legislative injunction that they shall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. Therefore if any application is filed for grant of permit in respect of the notified route included in the approved scheme of Kolar Pocket, the Transport Authority is bound io consider such application in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. It is a settled position of law that the scheme published under Section 68D(3) of the Act is law. While exercising jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme, the Transport Authority will be only enforcing the law and will be doing nothing but discharging the obligation imposed by the Act. The fact that there is a proposal to modify the scheme will neither affect the scheme nor the Jurisdiction of the Transport Authority. Until the Scheme is modified it is the statutory duty of the Transport Authority to enforce and give effect to the scheme. In doing so, it will not be usurping the jurisdiction not vested in it.