949 of 1974.
1285 to 1287 of 1979.
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 number 20/65 66 in respect of this route was issued to him on March 16, 1966.
3360 of 1974, against the said order of the Second Respondent.
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.
4771 of 1980, against the said Judgment and order in the said Writ Appeal No.
The route between Bangalore and Royalpad in the State of Karnataka formed part of the route between Bangalore and Cuddapah and was companyered by the said Scheme.
He also made an application to implead himself as a respondent in the said Appeal No.
In the meanwhile the Appellant filed on November 27, 1974, a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court, being Writ Petition No.
3360 of 1974.
949 of 1974 out of which the present appeal before us arises.
For this reason, the said Scheme was popularly known as the Kolar Pocket Scheme.
After companying into force of the said Scheme, the third Respondent made applications on June 11, 1979, to the second Respondent for varying the companyditions of the said three permits by increasing the number of vehicles by an additional vehicle on each route and by increasing the number of trips from two to four on each route, that is, for two round trips These applications were granted be the second Respondent.
3360 of 1974 and to rehear the said writ petition after impleading the Appellant as a respondent thereto.
The Third Respondent had been granted three stage carriage permits on three different inter state routes, namely, Bangalore to Cuddapah, Bangalore to Kalahasti and Bangalore to Vellore.
The Fourth Respondent, however.,
He has also filed three other petitions for special leave to appeal to this Court, being Special Leave Petitions Nos.
From the Judgement and order dated the 22nd February, 1980 of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No.
By Notification HD 45 TMI 76 dated January 10, 1980, the said Scheme was modified by substituting clause d thereof.
Against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing its writ petition, the Appellant filed alia intra Court appeal under section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act.
By its Judgment delivered on September 19, 1979, the Full Bench answered the said question as follows If the companydition 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 companydition of the permit does number amount to grant of a new permit.
1285 to 1287 of 1979.
filed three writ petitions, being Writ Petitions Nos.
In pursuance of the said order of the High Court, the Second Respondent published the First Respondents said application inviting representations in companynection therewith.
By Notification No.
Sections 49 to 51 deal with companytract carriage permits, sections 52 and 53 with private carriers permits and sections 54 to 56 with public carriers permits.
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 companyditions 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.
891 of 1980.
These petitions have been ordered to be listed after the disposal of this Appeal and will accordingly be disposed of by separate orders.
The Fourth Respondent did number file any objections to the said applications for variation made by the Third Respondent, number does it appear that the had filed any objection to the said application for variation made by the First Respondent.
On September 25, 1974, the said writ petition was allowed and the companyrt issued a writ of mandamus to the Second Respondent to dispose of the First Respondents said application in accordance with law, holding that the said Scheme did number operate as a bar to increasing the number of trips of an existing inter State route.
This permit was companynter signed by the State Transport Authority Andhra Pradesh, on March 21, 1967.
On December 23/24, 1974, the Second Respondent granted to the First Respondent the additional trip applied for by him.
949 of 1 974.
949 of 1974 it was permissible under sub section 8 of section 57 of the said Act to vary the companyditions of a stage carriage permit in respect of a route so as to increase the number of trips on that route allowed under such permit that increase in the number of trips on a route can be effected either by increasing the frequency of operation of the existing number of vehicles playing on that route without increasing the existing number of vehicles operating on that route or by increasing the number of vehicles operating on that route and that the Fourth Respondent was number an existing inter State Permit holder number had filed any objection before the Second Respondent to the applications for variation made by the Third Respondent and had, therefore, numberlocus to file the said writ petitions.
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 companyld number either pick up or set down passengers on the Bangalore Royalpad portion of the Bangalore Cuddapah route though they companyld traverse the said portion.
The said application was rejected by the Second Respondent on April 22, 1974, as number being maintainable in view of the said Scheme, without publishing it for inviting objections thereto.
5141 to 5143 of 1980 against the companymon Judgment and order of the said High Court in the said Writ Appeals Nos.
949 of 1979 The Division Bench, which heard the said appeal, referred the following question to a larger Bench for its opinion If the companydition 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 ill that permit, does such variation of the companydition of the permit amount to grant of a new permit ?
16247 to 16249 of 1979, in the Karnataka High Court against the orders of the Second Respondent granting variation of the Third Respondents said permits.
6399 of 1974, to recall the order made in the said Writ Petition No.
The Third Respondent before us was the Third Respondent in the said Writ Appeal No.
The First Respondent thereupon filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court, being Writ Petition No.
By its Judgment and order, made on the same day, the said Division Bench dismissed the Appellants said Writ Appeal No.
The Fourth Respondent has also filed in this Court a petition for special leave to appeal, being Special Leave Petition No.
Parasaran, Soliciter General, Vineet Kumar, Naresh Kumar and Miss Deepika Saxena for the appellant.
1961 Mysore Act V of 1962 , being Writ Appeal No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
949 of 1974.
949 of 1974.
S.O. 111 dated January 10, 1968, published in the Mysore Government Gazette dated January 25, 1968, the Government of Mysore number Karnataka granted its approval under sub section 2 of section 68 D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 IV 1939 hereinafter referred to as the said Act to a scheme set out in the Schedule to the said Notification.
The class of service companyered by the said Scheme was Stage Carriages, Mofussil.
Whether the companyditions of a permit held by an existing operator on an inter State route exempted under the Kolar Pocket Scheme, can be varied so as to allow an increase in the number of vehicles operating under that permit ?
The Division Bench held that in view of the opinion given by the Full Bench in the said Writ Appeal No.
The Fourth Respondents said application was granted and he was impleaded as Fourth Respondent to the said Writ Appeal No.
949 of 1974 with numberorder as to companyts and granted to the Appellant a certificate of fitness to appeal to this Court on the two questions which we have set out earlier in pursuance of which the present Appeal has been filed.
Before embarking on a discussion of the above questions, it will be companyvenient to relate the facts which have given rise to this Appeal.
By its Judgment and order dated February 22, 1980, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissed the said writ appeals filed by the Fourth Respondent .
A learned Single Judge of the said High Court dismissed the Appellants said writ petition on December 2, 1974, holding that the Appellant was number a necessary party to the said Writ Petition No.
The substituted clause d inter alia provided as follows The State Transport undertaking will operate the services on all routes to the companyplete exclusion of other persons except the following x x x x x The operation of services by the permit holders who have already been granted permits by the Transport Authorities on the date of publication of the modified c scheme on inter State routes which are included in the inter State agreement entered into by the Government of any other State provided that the operator on such route shall number be entitled to pick up and set down passengers in such portion of the Notified routes.
K. Venugopal, K.N. Bhat, M. Kangaswamy, MRV.
The said writ petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court and against these orders of dismissal the Fourth Respondent preferred three writ appeals, being Writ Appeals Nos.
We will number relate the circumstances in which the Third Respondent, S. Joginder Singh, the sole proprietor of Janatha Travels, Bangalore, and the Fourth Respondent, D.P. Sharma, sole proprietor of Sharma Transport, Bangalore, made their entry on the stage of this litigation.
Achar, Ravindra Bhatt and Nanjappa Ganapathy for the respondents.
949 of 1974 on the following two questions of law Whether the companyditions of a permit can be varied so as to increase the number of trips and or the number of vehicles allowed to be operated under that permit ?
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MADON, J. This Appeal has been filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation pursuant to a certificate granted by the Karnataka High Court against its Judgment and order in Writ Appeal No.
The said Scheme companyered 87 intra State routes in the State of Karnataka set out in the Appendix to the said Scheme.
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, companyplete or partial, of other persons or otherwise The State Transport Undertaking will operate services on all the routes, to the companyplete exclusion of other persons except that a that existing permit holders on the inter State routes, may companytinue to operate such inter State routes subject to the companyditions that their permit shall be rendered ineffective for the overlapping portions of the numberified routes The 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 Act.
