A M MALLEGOWDA Vs. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The petitioner is a holder of a Stage Carriage permit bearing P.St.P.No.43/54, in respect of route Mysore to Tellicherry and back to operate two round trips with two vehicles, one vehicle from Tellicherry and another from Mysore. Originally the petitioner was holding a permit in respect of the same route (Mysore-Tellicherry) under the terms of the Interstate agreement dated 30-6-1975 entered into between the States of Karnataka and Kerala.

(2.) The petitioner filed an application for curtailment of the portion of the route between Tellicherry and Mahe so as to bring the permit in accordance with interstate agreement. The said application was filed on 19-11-1981 and it was considered by the S.T.A. (first respondent), at its meeting on 19/20-9-1984 in Subject No. 152/1984. The S.T.A. refused to counter-sign the permit on the ground that the authorities in Kerala refused to counter-sign the permit and therefore, the permit would serve no useful purpose, by retaining the permit upto Mahe and therefore decided to curtail the route between Tellicherry and Mahe allowing the application filed by the petitioner (vide annexure 'A'). The variation of condition of permit is at annexure 'B'. The petitioner filed an application for grant of variation of the conditions of the permit for inclusion of one more single trip in regard to each of the two vehicles with the proposed timings and the application was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 29-5-1980. The said application was considered by the S.T.A. at its meeting on 27-11-1984 in Subject No.197/1981. However, S.T.A.. rejected the application on the ground that the route is not the route saved under the Mysore Scheme of nationalisation and therefore the increase of trip sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. The resolution so passed is produced at annexure 'C'.

(3.) The petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent in appeal No.144/1982. The second respondent framed five issues out of which fifth issue is relevant for the purpose of this petition. Issue No.5 runs as follows: