Case: Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. B. A. Jayaram And Others

2. Before embarking on a discussion of the above questions, it will be convenient to relate the facts which have given rise to this appeal. On February 2, 1966, the first respondent, B. A. Jayaram, had been granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore, a stage carriage permit on the inter-State route Cuddapah in the State of Andhra Pradesh to Bangalore in the State of Karnataka for one trip only and a stage carriage permit No. 20/65-66 in respect of this route was issued to him on March 16, 1966. This permit was countersigned by the State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh, on March 21, 1967. By Notification No. S.O. 111 dated January 10, 1968, published in the Mysore Government Gazette dated January 25, 1968, the Government of Mysore (now Karnataka) granted its approval under sub-section (2) of Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (IV of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") to a scheme set out in the Schedule to the said notification. The said scheme covered 87 inter-State routes in the State of Karnataka set out in the Appendix to the said scheme. The effect of the said scheme was to nationalize passenger transport service between Bangalore and various places in the Kolar District as also certain routes within the Kolar District. For this reason, the said scheme was popularly known as the Kolar Pocket Scheme. The class of service covered by the said scheme was "State Carriages, Mofussil". Clause 4 of the said scheme inter alia provided as follows: Whether the services are to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise :* * *The State Transport Undertaking will operate services on all the routes to the complete exclusion of other persons except that : (a) that existing permit holders on the inter-State routes, may continue to operate such inter-State routes, subject to the conditions that their permit shall be rendered ineffective for the overlapping portions of the notified routesThe said scheme was implemented with effect from January 1, 1969, by issuing a stage carriage permit to the appellant under sub-section (1) of Section 68-F of the said Act3. The route between Bangalore and Royalpad in the State of Karnataka formed part of the route between Bangalore and Cuddapah and was covered by the said scheme. Accordingly, the first respondents permit for the said portion of the Bangalore-Cuddapah route became ineffective with the result that the vehicles operated by the first respondent could not either pick up or set down passengers on the Bangalore-Royalpad portion of the Bangalore-Cuddapah route though they could traverse the said portion. On January 24, 1973, the first respondent made an application to the Karnataka State Road Transport Authority, the second respondent before us, for varying the conditions of the stage carriage permit granted to him by increasing the number of trips on the Bangalore-Cuddapah route from one trip per day to two trips per day. This was apparently done to eliminate an overnight halt at either of the two termini. The said application was rejected by the second respondent on April 22, 1974, as not being maintainable in view of the said scheme, without publishing it for inviting objections thereto. The first respondent thereupon filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court, being Writ Petition No. 3360 of 1974, against the said order of the second respondent. On September 25, 1974, the said writ petition was allowed and the Court issued a writ of mandamus to the second respondent to dispose of the first respondent said application in accordance with law, holding that the said scheme did not operate as a bar to increasing the number of trips on an existing inter-State route. In pursuance of the said order of the High Court, the second respondent published the first respondents said application inviting representations in connection therewith. In the mean while the appellant filed on November 27, 1974, a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court, being Writ Petition No. 6399 of 1974, to recall the order made in the said Writ Petition No. 3360 of 1974 and to rehear the said writ petition after impleading the appellant as a respondent thereto. A learned Single Judge of the said High Court dismissed the appellants said writ petition of December 2, 1974, holding that the appellant was not a necessary party to the said Writ Petition No. 3360 of 1974. On December 23/24, 1974, the second respondent granted to the first respondent the additional trip applied for by him. Against the order of the learned Single Judge dismisses its writ petition, the appellant filed an intra-Court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 (Mysore Act V of 1962), being Writ Appeal No. 949 of 1979. The Division Bench, which heard the said appeal, referred the following question to a larger Bench for its opinionf the condition of a permit for operating a stage carriage over a route is altered by increasing the maximum number of trips over that route, specified earlier in that permit, does such variation of the condition of the permit amount to grant of a new permit ?By its Judgment delivered on September 19, 1979, the full Bench answered the said question as follows :If the condition of a permit for operating a stage carriage over a route is altered by increasing the maximum number of trips over that route specified earlier in the permit such variation of the condition of the permit does not amount to grant of a new permit.

Court's reasoning:
13. We will first conclude our survey of the relevant provisions of the said Act before proceedings to ascertain the correct interpretation to be placed upon sub-section (8) of Section 57. Section 58 provides that a stage carriage permit or a contract carriage permit, other than a temporary permit issues under Section 62, shall be effective without renewal for such period, not less than three years and not more than five years, as the Regional Transport Authority may specify in the permit. A private carriers permit or a public carriers permit other than a temporary permit is to be effective without renewal for a period of five years. Under sub-section (2) of Section 58 an application for renewal of a permit is to be made and disposed of as if it were an application for a permit. Sub-section (2) also prescribes the time-limit within which applications for renewal are to be made and it further provides that other conditions being equal, an application for renewal shall be granted preference over view applications for permits. Section 59 prescribes the general conditions to be attached to all permits. Section 60 deals with cancellation and suspension of permits. It is unnecessary to refer to the other provisions of the said Chapter IV18. Even though when the condition of a permit is allowed to be varied on an application made under sub-section (8) of Section 57, the permit so varied is not a new permit, the question still remains whether in the case of an existing inter-State permit exempted under the said scheme an increase in the number of trips or the number of vehicles allowed to be operated under such a permit would be inconsistent with the provisions of the said scheme. We fail to see any inconsistency between an increase in the number of vehicles or trips allowed under such a permit and the provisions of the said scheme. So far as the portions of the inter-State route covered by the said scheme are concerned, the permits of the existing permit-holders have been rendered ineffective. Further, by the said scheme as modified, the existing permit-holders are not allowed to pick up or set down passengers on these portions of the notified routes. Whether one vehicle or more traverse these portions or whether the same vehicle transverses such portion more than once cannot in any manner affect the service operated by the appellant on such portion since no passengers are allowed to be picked up or set down on such portions. All that would happen is that these vehicles, in the course of their inter-State operation, would traverse these portions of the notified routes without in any way operating as stage carriages for such portions19. It is, therefore, clear that the second respondent was in error in rejecting the first respondents said application for variation without following the procedure laid down in sub-sections (3) to (7) of Section 57 merely on the ground that granting such application would be to grant a new permit and would be inconsistent with the provisions of the said scheme. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, clearly right in allowing Writ Petition No. 3360 of 1964 filed by the first respondent and in issuing a writ of mandamus against the second respondent directing him to dispose of the first respondents said application according to law. We are further of the opinion that the High Court was right in dismissing the said Writ Appeal No. 949 of 1974 filed by the appellant20. We would like to observe that it is difficult to understand how a certificate was granted by the High Court with respect to the first question contained in it. The question as framed does not bring out the actual controversy between the parties. The controversy was not whether the conditions of a permit can be varied so as to increase the number of trips or the number of vehicles allowed to be operated under that permit as mentioned by the High Court in the certificate granted by it. The real controversy was whether when the condition of a permit is varied so as to increase the number of trips or the number of vehicles allowed to be operated under that permit, it would amount to the grant of a new permit, the grant of which would not be in accordance with the provisions of the said scheme by reason of the provisions of Section 68-FF.