N REGHUNATHA PAL Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is an inter state stage carriage operator on the route Mangalore-Badiyadka granted by the Karnataka State Transport Authority and duly countersigned by the STA, Kerala. Subsequently the petitioner applied for regular variation by extending the route from Kumbala to Kasargode and curtailing the route from Kumbala to Badiyadka. The State Transport Authority, Bangalore granted the variation sought for, but the counter signature was rejected by the STA, Kerala. At the time when he applied for counter signature, he also wanted a replacement of the vehicle by substituting the vehicle KA.21/A 2777 in the place of KA.16/A 3393. The capacity of the proposed vehicle to be substituted was only 35 in all, as against 48 plus two capacity of the existing vehicle KA.16/A 3393. Since the difference between the two vehicles exceeds 25%, applying note to Sub Rule 3 to Rule 174 of K.M.V. Rules 1989, the replacement sought for was rejected and considered the claim for counter signature in respect of KA.21/A 2777 as though it is for a fresh permit. In that regard it was held that there should be mutual agreement between the concerned states in respect of inter state route and applying the principles in the decision reported in Ashwani Kumar v. Regional Transport Authority (AIR 1999 SC 3888), it was held that in the present case there was no such mutual agreement and an application for counter signature for permit was rejected. The petitioner though filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal has not challenged the finding as regards the replacement of the vehicle is concerned. In other words, the finding as regards the claim for replacement of the vehicle stood concluded by the decision of the STA. The Tribunal however held that the principle contained in AIR 1999 SC 3888 will apply even to counter signature of existing route. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking to quash Exhibits P5 and P6.

(2.) Heard both sides.

(3.) As far as application for replacement of the vehicle is concerned, since the petitioner did not challenge the finding in Exhibit P5 before the Appellate Tribunal, the same has become final and as such the petitioner is now running vehicle KA. 16/A 3393 in the same route as originally granted. The STA rejected the application for counter signature as against the vehicle KA.21/A 2777, but did not consider the application for counter signature as against the vehicle KA.16/A 3393. As a matter of fact, even the Tribunal did not address this question in this regard.