KARNATAKA AUTO DRIVERS WELFARE JOINTACTION COMMITTEE REGISTERED BANGALORE Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BANGALORE DISTRICT BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the proceedings dated 11-10-1996, of secretary, regional transport authority (r. t. a), Bangalore district who by his resolution No. 10/95-96, dated 11-10-1996, provided as under: "keeping in view the said notification of the central government, the state government has discussed the matter and decided to get a systematic study report from the Indian institute of management regarding the number of autorickshaws required in Bangalore city. Keeping in view the projected demand for the next four-five years vide proceedings of the government issued in htd 247 tme 93, dated 3-1-1994 and letter No. Sta 1 (a ). Pr. 112 of 1990-91, dated 26-1-1994. , therefore, in the light of the decision of the government, this authority at its meeting held on 24-5-1994 in subject No. 6 of 1994-95, resolved to continue the grant of autorickshaw permits. However, now the time has come to restrict the grant of fresh autorickshaw permits pending notification by the government, as roads of Bangalore city are not in a position to take any more vehicles due to congestion. Hence, it is resolved to temporarily suspend the grant of fresh autorickshaw permits in Bangalore city with effect from 1st january, 1997. The secretary, regional transport authority is directed to give wide publicity in local newspapers, in this regard and also intimate the leading banks and other financial institutions, which are giving the financial assistance/loans, shall also send an extract of this resolution to the additional chief secretary and principal secretary to government, home and transport department, vidhana soudha, Bangalore and to the chairman, state transport authority and commissioner for transport, Bangalore for initiating immediate action in this regard. Sd/- secretary, regional transport authority".

(2.) THIS resolution of regional transport authority indicates that regional transport authority on its own has resolved to suspend the grant of fresh autorickshaw permits in Bangalore city w. e. f. 1-1-1997 in anticipation of likely decision to be taken by the state government and issuance of notification to restrict the grant of number of fresh autorickshaw permits on the roads in Bangalore. It has been contended before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that autorickshaw comes under the head contract carriage permits. The power to grant contract carriage permits is conferred under Section 74 and this power is subject to the Provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 74. It means that if sub-section (3) of Section 74 confers right and power to the state government to issue a direction by notification to be published in the official gazette, to limit the number of contract permits in general or in relation to any specified area as may be fixed by the specified notification and the power to grant this contract carriage permits will be limited to the extent of the number of permits so fixed and not beyond that. The regional transport authority has power to grant the contract permit to persons fulfilling the required conditions under law. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Section 80 particularly sub-section (2) and contended that an account of liberalised policy adopted by the government and under the scheme of the Act, Section 80, sub-section (2) provides that ordinarily regional transport authority shall not refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under this act. Learned counsel contended that in this view of the matter, the transport authority cannot pass an order for suspension of grant of permits for an unlimited period w. e. f. 1-1-1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri b. r. s. gupta contended that this notification is illegal, null and void. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under Section 74, sub-section (3), the state government has to issue direction by publication in the notification directing state/regional transport authority to limit the number of contract carriages and the number may be fixed and specified in the notification generally or with reference to specified area by the state transport authority or by the regional transport authority but sine qua non for exercise of that power by the state transport authority or regional transport authority fixing the number, is a direction issued by the state government in that regard by way of publication in the notification in the official gazette and such direction can be issued by the state government only if it is so directed by the central government. Learned counsel contended that issuance of direction by the central government to the state government in this regard is pre-condition and when central government has directed the state government for fixation of the number of stage carriage permit or the like, then state government has been granted power and is required to issue a direction in the form of notification published in the official gazette, requiring the regional transport authority or state transport authority as the case may be, to fix the limit of number of contract carriages for the year. Learned counsel contended that no such direction has been issued by the state government and when no such direction has been issued, the regional transport authority acted illegally and in excess of jurisdiction in issuing annexure-a. Learned counsel further contended that there is no question of issuing an order of temporary suspension of permit. Even under Section 74 (3) what regional transport authority could do is to fix the number of contract carriage permits, and that can be done by state transport authority or regional transport authority only after directions are issued by the government-central and state viz. Central has to issue to the state government and state government to the transport authorities and in the absence of any such direction, this notification impugned is bad. Learned counsel contended that this petition has been filed on behalf of auto drivers by their joint action committee and is on account of non-granting of the permit for autorickshaws and temporary suspension thereof, the autorickshaw drivers who have taken loan and have purchased the autorickshaws are badly suffering for their livelihood and earnings and as such the association in the interest of its members has filed this petition.

(3.) ON behalf of the opposite parties Sri singri, learned government pleader invited my attention to the statement of objection and submitted that the government of India had already issued a direction to the State of Karnataka to direct the concerned transport authorities to limit the number of contract carriages in general or in specified areas. Learned counsel submitted that notification issued by the central government is dated 12-9-1990, and has been annexed as r-1 to the writ petition, therefore the central government has already issued this notification and the table indicates that with reference to Karnataka state, the areas have been specified viz. , Bangalore, hubli and dharwad. Learned counsel also submitted and invited my attention to paras 3 and 6 of the counter-affidavit. I have gone through those paragraphs also. It is stated therein that in the meeting held on 29-12-1993 the state considered the matter and decided that a systematic study will be undertaken and the Indian institute of management, Bangalore chapter was requested to conduct a survey and suggest the government, the requirements of autorickshaws in the city keeping in view the growth rate of city for another 5 years i. e. , upto 2001. It has further been stated that the Indian institute of management, Bangalore submitted a report in 1994, wherein it is pointed out that as in 1994 the strength of 33,000 authorickshaws was enough to carry the estimated travel demand till 2001. It has further been stated that as per the statistical information there are 44,367 autorickshaws in Bangalore city as on 30-11-1996. It has further been stated that considering the congestion of roads, AIR pollution, density of vehicles on the road, increasing number of accidents etc. , the regional transport authority, Bangalore at its meeting dated 11-10-1996 resolved to stop and suspend the grant of autorickshaw permits from 1-1-1997 and this resolution was communicated to the government with request to take an immediate action. Learned counsel further submitted that this is an action in which a direction is sought to be issued by the state government to the regional transport authority to stop grant of permits.