IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6"'I)AY OF AUGUST,
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AN.AN[) IsYIII?I]gI3I:I3y I II A
WRIT PETITION N0. 793_Of?~2()0$'AA€MV")- 7
WRIT PETITION I\?O'.4--..EI86 OF 2008 I1vI'*~.()-.II,I
IN WRIT PETITION NO, 793 OF..i2'Q§)8'{MVI.' 'I «
BETWEEN:
1.
K. Mir AImIm,._ _ .
Aged E'
S/0 Late I3}.-. VNHI'3':f\ZE1[{71-, _ ' " '
I>:Iop:I De¢5c_an 'e;~vi_ce," A
No.50,' Kh£I2i:"SITc§;I;I~.I_ ._ I
Baisavanagudi'; V. V'
BangéI!QTe.v-- 560
"3'«:SIff'.Tf'. Shanti « _____ .. s
;I'bQut 40 years,
E' = . W259' ':'S_Ti; Manohar,
%2II'1'2I,IA2;mI'a Buiiding,
VKa]_:1s'I§3u;I}j1zI,
Ba--hgaiijre -- 560 002.
...PETITIONERS
'AA5_hriVI"Puthige R. Ramesh, Advocate)
.x'3x..1§T..1..3...I.
The. State of Karnataka
By its Secretary,
Transport Department,
M.S. Building,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
D. Tangaraj, IAS
(Deleted as per Order dated'v'VC'i'5.:_:'d§
Karnataka State Road':T1'a::1sp§}1ft. " _
Corporation, _
By its Managing Director; V
Central oamesttta 1<.éH. u D '
Banga_1_ore.3-- __
State tom mil "i.'§§IVVad._:j' t C
By its Sccretéij-'y}'t _
Home
Che tahaui ?- .600. V .
"3'~Sta_te E_xpreaS's «'I7.1i21t2sp()rt Corporation
(Ta;:u'1et;tdu) Ltd.
~ Managing Director,
._ VPaivlz{\_za__r1
' VChennaiV_v=' 600 002.
S'. .S. Motor Service,
' *=,_By"its Managing Director,
* --_ MC. Ananthashankar, -
Anekal,
Bangaiore Rurai District.
$
0,08)"
K. Anantharaju,
Major,
Prop: Madhusudan Motor Service.
Kolar Main Road,
Kolar -- 563 IOE.
Selvanathan, Major
Bus Operator,
Main Road,
K.G.F.,
Koiar District.
Ramakanya Devi,
Major,
W/o Late Sri. D.P. Sharma,
Sharma Transport, --- i
A.V. Road, Kalasipaiiy-a,
Bangalore -- 560 002*.' '
S/o'«I{;.
A.v.'R._o'ad., Kalasip'aIy.a,
5 B3r1ga1or*e, {S60 O02.
" 'V V S1'e_Khader-gab,
%Jzii'n"'Ten1_'o'i~e' Road,
V Vis_hi/eemvarapuram,
Ba-ngariore * 560 004'.
o---._Ja i"'Vijai Bhupathy. Major,
_,--Prop: Moder Travels,
Shani-car Mutt Road,
Mysore * 575 00!.
18. GM. Aswath Reddy, Major,
S/o Muniswamy Redcly,
Prop: Jai Bharath Motor Service,
Gunjur, Via Varthur
Bangalore Rural Sistrict. _
(By Shri. KM. Shivayogiswamy, High Court Goveriitttieiltt Pleader
for Respondent No.1, Shri. B.V.S. Rat), Advocate.;fotf"aRespondeVi1t
NO.3, Shri. B.N. Jayadeva, Advoc:atelwforfRespondent'No..5--,,Sl<1fi.
B. Prabhudevaru, Advocate for Respondent "Sihri.t C.V.p
Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.1 'l,"l3 and *B.R.S.- A
Gupta, Advocate for Respondent No.8 & 14, 'Sl§r'i.' Achar,
Advocate for Respondent, 'No.7 !.,.7',-.S"i'~1.rAi. S.V.'vKris'nnaswa1ny,
Advocate for Responder1t,_i\'o.6-i. 16 and Respondent
No.4, Respondent No. 10 are Servedi' ..
eaaeakf,
This iV\?v'tiiv't_ Peii;iit'io_n"».,i's filedwvunder Article 226 of the
Constitution of.lneia,upray'ing*-t.o' set-aside the order the Inter State
Agreement "as 'notiiiied'*~.__i"ri«.="the Notification bearing No.
SARIE/1812/SAEPA 2006 dated 7"' January, 2008 at Annexure--A
and etc.-, A *
;_§1.__.wt§u'i;~e*r1T1oNNo.686 OF 2008 (MV)
A
_ R. Ra'nga--natha Reddy,
~ .. ,. V'-Aged about 65 years,
'' igSl'o*Late R. Rama Recldy,
* T 14"" Cross, 7" Main,
~ Wilson Garden,
Bangalore W 560 027. ...PETlTlONER
AND:
The State of KZi1'I1Zl{8.k£1
By its Secretary,
Transport Department,
MS. Building,
Dr. BR. Ambedkar Road,
Bangalore --- 560 001.
D. Tangaraj, IAS
(Deleted as per Orc{et=~
Karnataka State Road..Trs1nsVpotfi D D
Corpor2rti_o.n,a ' V
By its Di'reC:':or, 'V V' D
Central Off-i.ee$',°--VK,H--.{jRoad," _ »
Ba_ngalore''-*-'5V6O027,'"--A V of
State-.of ' V. '
Byits 'Secretary,' V. "
Home ..Department," V.
Chennai cocoons.
Express Transport Corporation
' 'V V ('fr3ti1i1"'Nadu) Ltd.
V.B"y .i"t_;V, _1\/}2i:tv1Va'ging Director,
V Pa§]ava.r_trSz1Iz1i,
Clzennzii ---- 600 002.
' S.vVK.M.S. Motor Service,
_,-'By its Managing Director,
C. Ananthashankar,
Anekal,
Z
1.0.
t'\.y,, = ~
Bangalore Rural District.
K. Anzmtharaju,
Major.
Prop: Madhusucian Motor Service,
Kolar Main Road,
Ko1ar--563 I01.
Seivanathan, Major
Bus Operator,
Main Road,
K.G.F.,
Kolar District.
Ramakanya Devi,
Major, '
Sharrrra"'"I"1'2;r1§pfj-rt,' _ H
A-Vr,,R0afir» ii'-i=:'%..1?'.5iii?.€"'1§/:.iEi'§ M . ,
K.iTh1:«umu:;hgr,,rMaia.
S/0 Ka§iiyappan,'A._ " .
; AjjLipu1'a P.os'r,~ "
"i'«:Ko_11eg,a1 Tql,' « ..... .. e
Ch3'inaraj_anagar District.
VP§'i'éif"'}\,.Fagéx:t}ra,
Major," '
Prop: Shankar Vitta] Bus Service,
I"2,__ Kaveri Nilaya,
' ._D Street, Fort,
-- _,-Bangalore -- 560 002.
G.T. Venkataswamy Reddy,
'5'
W10 Late_"Srr'i",;VT.,D.P. ishag-ma, V A'
13.
14.
Aged about 78 years,
S/o Gunjur Thimmaiah,
Prop: Vinayaka Motor Service,
A.V. Road,
Bangalore -- 560 002.
Hanume Gowda,
Major,
Prop: LakshmiSaraswathi
Motor Service,
S/0 H.C. Narayanappa,
Dispensary Road,
Kaiasipalya,
Bangalore -- 560 002.
Kalaivani Ammai, Major', 0'
Prop: Bharathi Motor .Ser.\/ice, "
Ashok
Ganesh, 'M-a%j'or,, 0 . '
20/ 1 , Swamy mp:e,;:,';
Road, Ka'lasipa1ya,
ji ' ':'«:Bar}ga.}_ore --"56.0___002.
' j e K. Major,
'S/('J K~§1ade'I'Sab.
0Jain_ Terjtfile Road.
Vi~3hveShwarapu1'a:11,
Bangalore -- 560 004.
. Vijai Bhupathy, Major,
Prop: Moder Travels,
Shankar Mutt Road,
3
Mysore -- 575 001.
18. GJVI. Aswath Reddy, Major,
S/0 Muniswamy Raddy,
Prop: Jai Bharath Motor Service,
Gunjur, Via Varthur
Bangalore Rural District.
(By Shri. C.V. Kumar, Advocate for"aRes;'po.nde'11t_ii'§iO.lili:a--ndi'i1.§_S,
.. ._RE;SiI?QtSI'£§E-N'1"S' t as
Shri. B. Prabhudevaru, Advocate for Re'spo--ndentjN"o,A9;' Shrig §<Z.i\i/lg
Shivayogiswamy, Advocate for _R'e..spond'ent NO'..l, M.R.\r'~.U
Achar, Advocate for Respondentlxlo. Tiand"-i7,K:Sh1'i. B.N.
Jayadeva, Advocate for Res-pontleia NC)'.5v,.. Shri. S.V.
Krishnaswamy, Advocateaifor RespoVnd.eat"'NAo.6, 12, 15 and 16,
Shri. NE. Nagesh, Advocate'forv.iR§:spond'eVnt No.2, Respondent
NO.4 Served). .. '-
'taasaxg "
Ti*1iisiiiiVv'.:iiE_V P<'i3i:ftiiiit)ii1'».Vi.iS filieidwiunder Article 226 of the
Constitution ofInciija,prayi.ng*to' set-aside the order the Inter State
Agreement as 'noti_t'ied"~.__i'n."the Notification bearing No.
SARIE/l8l}'S'AEPA .2006 dated 7"' January, 2008 at Annexure--A
and et_.«.;.», _ A *
_ "petitions having been heard and reserved on
L 15.()6v.2Gv.14Oia'r'idTcoming on for pronouncement of orders this day,
ihe"C_ou2""i; de.l_iverc-'d the follovving:~
ORDER
A. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
_i respoiidents.
é’>
IO
2. The brief facts that are pertinent to dispose of these
petitions are as follows:-
In WP 793/2008, the petitioners are said to
of a Stage Carriage Permit on the inter»state rtiateplsgfiangaéltire’tgxi
Hosur Cattle Farm and Bangalore to[Denkanj.iko_ttai,’ ‘r_els~p’ec_tlilx{el)”.
The first respondent is the State of l(arnat2ikefe’t’.”i’ _s§eCond:°.
respondent is the Principal S€Ciil’ll(“,-T,£:t!”j,-‘,,_ to t’l~..ei_l department of
transport, who was alst)””thle.,exp~eel’ficlie-l,[VC,lhairmz1n of the State
Transport Undertakings (hereinaftenreferredito as ‘ the STUS’ for
brevity)!’ The’.ilV§i_rdlt;{:spoln(lei1t islieaeet’ the STUs in the State of
Karnatal<la«,V The 'fon'rth_ires_pondent is the State of Tamil Nadu.
Whileahe filth..:respondentl:is one of the srus of the State of
Tamil The other respondents are private operators.
l* It . pisiithe contention on behalf of the petitioners that the
T"~.t.._l_"».third respondent was the sole STU of the State of Karnataka.
T.l'E_leweiver, it is now constituted of three undertakings namely, the
e…Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, North–West
5
Karnataka Road Transport Corporation and North–East Karnataka
Road Transport Corporation. In terms of Section the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as. Ifthei
for brevity), which corresponds to Section_88(5′)’
Motor Vehicies Act, 1939 (hereinaftei’:.refe_r1*ed to~.a;s
brevity), the States of Ka1’natai{a,:v4iain_d Ta’m,i__1 Nfitdti entered’.
into an interstate agreement as i973, which isreferred to
in the petition as the principai,iagreeinen_t, ~T_h,is was supplemented
as on 7.6.i975,,– to.,_Vincorporate:.’changes.,wa§’ranted by efflux of
time and there was,.a ‘furthe–r,’jvsa’p–p]em’entai agreement notified on
l.iO.20C’.7. ObjeiC’ti.ofn,:s’we’iie¥i’ri-vited to the said notification and the
petitioner had, siubrnitted._his:_it3bjections, wen within the prescribed
A’ timegflone’ of the ‘niain__objections was that the second respondent,
was._,tihe;’e.bai–1fman of the STU of the Karnataka State should
not the proceedings, at which the basis would be
i’i.conside’i’ir1g the benefits to be conferred on the STUS. inspite of
_sarne, the second respondent did participate in the proceedings.
, petitioners had filed a Wri»g)etiti0n before this court seeking
consideration of his representation, which was for inclusion of the
route ~» Bangalore to Coimbatore, in the interstate -«a’gre’e_m–eAnt.
That petition was disposed of with a direction conTsiderit’iiei”.
representation of the petitioners. rneanytthile} the»
proceedings in respect of the third supplemental iav_gre*e1*nei*:.t”wpereu
conducted, with the second respionident in “tl.1i.e”‘C.hair.7_ This was
specifically questioned Vjpggg/20979
which according tothe on the date the
present petition llimejanwhile, the second
and the agreement has
attainedgifina’lity.”lx’:1-ti’is’that'”–.agreen1ent which is sought to be
challenged”onliseveiral grountfls.
_;i’insofai”‘a3..W_Pv686/2008 is concerned, the same is aiso
‘t’i.l.ed~by*alpevtition__er, who claim to hold Stage Carriage Permits in
reispeict of thei__ii’iterstt1te route ~ Bangalore to Coimbatore valid up
ifito 30.121311, alleging the same infirrnities insofar the
fina_li_s§ation of the third supplemental agreement is concerned.
8
E3
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, .8″-,while
elaborating on the grounds raised would contend..~«.t–hat«..__Sect:i’on
88(5) of the Act, falling under Chapter-V, ct)n_fe..rs_:}3ovvers8._on1 tiieui
State Governments to enter into 1’ec:i_pror;aslAfiagreementsu
themselves, keeping in mind the’«–intei’e’st_o’f the 2traveléligngglipulblicllv
and to ensure a coordinated Section 88(1)
of the Act contemplates V Section 72 of
the Act by the ti*a_nsport not be valid
in another isfllcountersigned by the
transportaluthoi/itfiielsiigéf’ However, the requirement
of not required to be followed if
suchA.permits’are’granted pursuant to an interstate agreement
Senteired Eiritc)lVd’betweenll’the said States. One other advantage of the
8″‘perLr’_1_1it ‘oe:i”n,g cove’red under an interstate agreement is that, it is
sufficient ‘for’the holder to pay motor vehicle tax to the home
._:State, uiiiike normal requirement of paying such tax to both the
States. Further, having regard to the law as laid down by the apex
3
14
Court in the case of As/zwin Kumar vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1999
SC 3888, a permit on an interstate state route cannot beigrstnted
unless the route is covered by an interstate agreeme_n’t’;” t heisearep
multiple advantages that would apply toma route”Co–vered”VunCle1’an= . 88
interstate agreement. It is pointed”i:4ou:”‘L;at ‘in “~te1’ins :”iof’?:he
agreement, there are more than fresh igrants _rhadei_i’1’1favour oft 8
the STUS of Karnataka and ‘i”am.i.l:’Nad–~u, whereas a single
fresh grant is made in favou_r”oi°iprivaleoperators, though the
benefits have (:0nf:3:ii’re§cli_:Qsn private operators,
which were in respelctiof were earlier granted to
the rn.
It isll”i1t;?ti1erlllpoliiiptedtlout that though an STU would be
– V. p_ entitled for preferent«ia_i treatment, under the provisions of Chapter
VI of it is not contempiated under the provisions of
V_ioiii:t3i}el:MV Act. in that background, the participation of
“-the Pririci_pal Secretary of the transport department, who was also
as the Chairman of the STU, occupying the chair at the
V. .proceedings to hear the objections in respect of the supplemental
Z
15
agreement, are vitiated on the ground of bias. The other
contention is that the proceedings conducted by the Principal
Secretary to the transport department, cannot be construed as
proceedings conducted by the State Government.
emphasized that the apparent benefits conf’erred’Vo:n
even though the said undertakings were’ not ,_entitled.:to-haveihariy
preferential treatment under the; provisionisi. of Ch’ilipteriV “of”the’a
MV Act, would also vitiate the proceedings. if ‘-
It is the further grie_i}ance.’_fo’fi.thie~«petiitioners that insofar as
some of the private operato_rs. are vi.pcon’ceVr’ne,d;” inspite of their
permits khaviiig.Vbeen”set’*as’i’de’ or directed to be cancelled in
judicial profce_efdi,ngs._ tfhey been included in the agreement.
_In regard, thedearned counsel for the petitioner has ‘placed
re.liance li’aifge_ number of authorities.
6,12,l5 and 16 have filed statement of
i’i.objections”:.to contend that the petitioners in WP 793/2008 have
V”-iinco_rre,’ctly contended that they are holding Stage Carriage Permits
5
16
and if they are not holding any such inter–state permits, they are
not entitled for any relief in the writ petition. Henvceti,._lin_ the
absence of any material piaced before the court, ti§i”sul;is’t–anti~a__te_
their contention, it wouid be misleading on””ti’1e::’_part. of t_he”x
Qetitioners to seek to chailenge the inilillgniedt.:§otiific’at.lon.l ‘
6. The second responctentl’i’h,ais’, in turrz, fiied statement of
objections to contend that.__he serv’in.g.as’«a Principal Secretary-
to the transport departinent..o.fithe {3overrimeirtti._of Karnataka at the
relevant points 3-of §ti’injre.. and _the_…lpjroposal’ii to enter into third
supplemenittfl’agreexnent _iivri.:tlt theH”S”tate of Tamil Nadu was in
terms of ‘Section Act and even before issuing the
draft notification, there were severai discussions between the two
lStateli”Tra”nSP§1t.’authorities and it is after a consensus was arrived
at,thatftheiidraftinotification was published inviting objections.
During November 2007, the Government of Karnataka was
“-Ti’L1.n’clt3.r_A’i.–‘the Governor’s rule and in view of the change of
u.G.overnment, he was the Chairman, Karnataka State Road
8
18
private operators since only a handful of private operators have
been included in the agreement is not Correct, since admhiitte-dly
there are private operators who have been incl_1_:§led*« ri:;!f_3eg_
agree ment.
Insofar as the allegation of biaéeis1’¢o~2’icern_ed,pthei liearni-ed
counsel for respondent no.2 pl21ees_vireliance’ orlat_hev-de”eiS’ion “of the” V
apex Court in Delhi Fit3.at1L’e Ancmd,
(2004)(]1) SCC 625 and pliaiicges following passage
therein:-
‘i.li?'(,l!ii:?ltlfI ct judge in h.t’.v own
c’ait,s’e,” Cam to cases where the person
c'()t1c’iem’ec1′ Ila: ti.iAi,t9ei{S’r.1Vtttziil interest or has’ himxelji
_a’lrtegd_y’ tlwze’ mrhe or taken. at dec’t’.s’t’tm in the matter
i€’t)r;_.Aeerr2teti. A/Iiere’f_3f’i9ecczLt.ve cm r)_[f’iee oft: corporation
-tilt tb..be the ctttIl20rit_y, d(‘)e.\’ not by it.s’elf bring
the clocrrine ‘no man. can be ct ‘jutige in
“=..l2i.s’ V,__.-du3v.=<tVii i"ctLtl\'c1.' For that u'0c'trz't'z.e to come mm play it
ttz"Lt..;\'t3 be .s'I't0wtt that the Qfficer corteemed imx ct
'}'?€I'.S'()IIal biax or c.'0rtne.c'{t'0Iz or at p(3I'.\'()i'lCll t't'tIere.vI or
"has ])€i'.S'()I1£1[1}? acted in the matter concerned cmcl/or
%
hm' ctlrectcb' taken a dec':'.s'imI one way or the other
whirl: he may he in.Ier'e.s'Iea' in .s'uppor'Iir1g. '
And would contend that merely because he has presideid"-o:ve'ifv,4a
meeting to finalise the third supplemental ag1'eeme_nt, . the"
does not stand vitiated unless specific; eividencie is'p1aced,vb'e'fore
the court that the second respondent had. any persginapi"interestuin'p
the operation of the STU, in theiidec'i'si'on reiied upon
by the petiti_oners in :«{g'_,V'~1i(');"zp of Iririzhz, 1970 SC
150, could have been "pressed involved the
case of a member the itsea' being one of the
applicants, and theirefoie, thiepersonal interest of the member was
involved, whiehiwas n_oti't_hie«circumstance in the case on hand. it
'His aisohpoiented outiiithat-«the petitioner's permit was not a saved
"permi_tV. ..itheirefore, even according to the petitioner, the
excliuséiion vo.f'thei petitioner's permit is the subject matter of
-‘««.__iproceediirivg_s’ before the apex court and it cannot be said that it was
_b_t,–r’virf.aie of the participation of the second respondent that he has
“been deprived of any such right.
5
20
The allegation that the participation of the second
respondent vitiated the proceedings is no longer 1*eisjV…._i:zreg;=z;~
the Supreme Court had occasion to considerf-an’–.i_ide_ntical._
circumstance in Kondala Ran us.
wherein the participation of a minister in_approv.ingj;t.he sc_hen’1e_7
under section 99 while being the held not
to vitiate the decision to ‘It is also pointed
out that though the petitioner”ha:d; questioning
the very ” -..se.condiiirespondent in those
court had not chosen to
restrain from participating in those
proceedings. Insofaisesais the proceedings itself are concerned, it is
.e’t’nphiasi.zetil’*thiatthe seiieral proposals and suggestions made by
the as well as the general public were taken into
_consid’erati–__on ~b’efore finalising the draft Notification and hence,
iiea.§l_egati’on is baseless and unfair in seeking to challenge the
._iisaii’d-Vnotification on the grounds urged.
S
7. The fifth respondent has also filed statement of
objections to contend that the petitioner has not indicated.4’as_ to
how he is an aggrieved party and there is no indication .
he would be entitled to be granted a permit in-breispect of Vroutesi”
covered by the inter–state agreement vnvhich: isiiu1ider”chai1en§zfit
is the contention of the said resppondent thatthe’-.:ro’ute’s~are all”
notified routes, in respectzof whi.-ch, permit ca’n”ibe-tgranted to
private operators and hence, thierigiijs ;’ab_so’ltiitei”yf_no scope for the
petitioner to secure’aVp:”{>erm_’_it under ‘ot’..th_efi routes. Further, the
State of Tarhipl several schemes making
provision,fo–r by the STUS of State of Tamil
Nadu and iA_par;t..’a’froin the existing private operators
‘Vwho_”1iave__continueidto.__operate with valid permits in respect of
i’=.iiitei”state’-routes;’ which schemes have been published with prior
concurrence””ofiinthe Central Government and there are also area
~=,_”s.chemes which are published, restricting the operation of services,
_dc-n”thef?routes lying in the respective revenue districts of Tamil
= Nadu, for exclusive operation by the STUS of Tamil Nadu and
?’s’
22
Karnataka and existing private operators who are operating on
valid permits. in the light ofthose schemes, there is also no scope
for the petitioners or for any other operator to be granted..;i’~per;_nit
afresh, even if a fresh route is opened up under__–ti1e ~
agreement and therefore, the petitioner_is~n_o_t entitled’ »an’y.ireVlief.
The petition is also bad for non~joinlder
niil
Nadu, who are entitled to be gran’teo*~perm.its..undAerv_:the:iinpiignediV’
intep-state agreement andzwho ha’\’ie’e:i_i’sol”s-eeured p’erm’its and are
operating under the inipugriedj’iinterxstate.agreement. The
participation of the”‘gsecontl_ iespondent –ii’11~-thsé.i proceedings is also
addressed’toucon.te’i1ri”-that,sgtiheiobjection is not tenable as he had no
personal intlerest and was merely discharging his
~ . g_ciutie_s’i:r1 o_fficial”‘capa;:’ity.
V “S, “Resp0nd*ent no.12 has questioned the loam’ standi of
the petitioriers”ipreferring the writ petition as they do not possess
-<.__li~nter–sta'te.___'permits either from Bangalore to Coimbatore or
23
23
Bangaiore to Denkanikota. Hence, the inter-»state agreement does
not affect their rights.
9. Respondents 6,12,15,16 have filed
objections to the writ petition in ,’.’7\/P”4586/20;LiSfdtid: “wotilld
contend that the grounds raised in this wi:it’petition_*v_t are sirr1i1a~rto–.,
the grounds raised in WP 20008/2iO()§;.exCept w1tjitiipetition,ii
the petitioner had sought’fot’t~.a writ ofi”prohii”t1ition against the first
respondent from finalising. the’-.inter–:sta’te,agreeinent. Insofar as
the Stage Carriage §rar_initi”saidito the petitioner being
invalid 1, _the,:i’perrniit”‘has not been counter–signed
by the State “Franspo1’i:’atit’hor’i«ty” of Tami} Nadu at any point of
time. in ggthisi regard, an appeal was filed before the State
I V iiT’1~3,n’sipori*ti’}\ppc11ate Tribiunai of Madras regarding the rejection of
the ‘c’ot1int’er’_s,ignatiire. Since the Tribunai negated the appeai, a
. civil irevis—ion”p’etition was fiied before the Supreme Court in Civil
iio.3605/2003, which is pending consideration and an
‘ti-‘interim direction which was sought for, was rejected. In that
5’
24
background, it cannot be said that the petitioner therein was
competent to challenge the inter–state agreement as he,V.doe.’s._Vnot
hold any permit as the so-called permit held by
paper, since it is not counter signed t_>_y…th_e tra_–n’siportiatithoiriityof
Tamil Nadu. The law as laid down bythe
permit which is not counter signedwoulhd he an V-,in”v.al’i’d~perm.it{V V
Hence, the petitioner lack the l(2..:zz.;:-…§_’tr1i?i.ii’;’_ to qtiestioii the inter-
state agreement, which hasVb_e’eni~con’clI_ided=..in accordance with
the provisions MY Act.’ Insoifar.iiiVfi§ie allegation against
the second respon’d_ent”‘is» cio-rijcerneti, it is pointed out that he was
merely ii..dis-::iiarg’iiagr-._’his”‘~.offic’ial functions and though his
participation did.’ not _vit.i.atey the proceedings.
._f°¥lQ.__ii’Responde~nt___no.l8 has filed statement of objections to
contendVthatf~tiiid.er the inteI’–state agreement, the States of
Karnataka and °§”amil Nadahave determined the rounds and trips
-‘«.__”-for StageV__Ca1’riage Permits on the interstate rounds lying in the
:i’Stat.es.i.~’of Karnataka and Tarnii Nadu and the provisions namely,
3
Section 88(5) and 88(6) of the MV Act, which provide t’_o_r such
an agreement being entered into does not invo}\ie.,yi”t.he
adjudication of the rights of the parties. The petitiionersi
hold any valid permit and therefore, ,:::r’e” not ,_e1–1titl,edivito._=f;uestio’n
the said agreement. It is for the ijeciproicatirsg States; to”decide”the’–..
number 01° permits, rounds and the no
right to demand that his or included
as a matter of right. He,nc:,e:”? misconceived.
Significantly, . made a party to the petition on that ground alone as being of necessary parties.
11. Respovndentiiino’;9,iii’has filed Statement of objections to
‘conte~ni:l that the sia’i’d.re_s_prmdent holds a stage carriage permit for
iflthe.irtteretatei’route between Bangalore and Villupurarn which has
beeappreneweidsifqsf to 11.8.2011. Upon the grant of the permit, an
‘applicat1′”o_n°:.was filed for grant of counter signature before the
Ti’*fii’;iitAat6:_ii’:if;’ansport Authority, Tamil Nadu, which by its order dated
9
the petitioner. The High Court of Madras granted an order of stay.
On a further representation, the ninth respondent’s rour.e’e.yvas
included as saved permit under Act 41 of 1992
Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the a11egati_o11s_i_n theipetii-ii_eni”=to,sta.te”‘
that there has been any discriniinationin Oftiii3.respij’i1Ciidn:t
is not a correct statement. in anapeiirent, the__ petVit1one.r”cai111iot be” i
caiied an aggrieved person a.s'””the– Va-llegations-A agaiiist the
authorities are vague and doc.inot’-vi/arrai1t’– fconsviderettion by this
court. The gr~o’Li’:~1d;<;~ aiso 'tintefna.b_ieViVfiand do not merit
consideration' _as.:jti1~ere"'–is 4'i1i5V'i.ma11iifetgt'error on record or the
exercise of powerd'as"-b'e'ing;"arbitrary. The several authorities cited
to substa11tiate_'ti:at the petition does not warrant consideration as
'"~._no speicific' rnateriai«iS__..pieaded by the petitioner to demonstrate
i'–v.tphatthe_ were biased against the petitioner or that any
speciali interest the respondents has been satisfied.
i2.it.The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to contend that
"insvo_fair}as the contention that the petitioner has no locus srandi is
5
28
misconceived. Since it is not material whether they possessed a
permit while testing the validity of challenge to an-«_iiite’r~_st–:1Ate
agreement. As it is evident from Section 88(5) of
View of the words “permits which are”proposed to. granted or
counte1′–signed” is significant, thereby meaniiig [h3i[_”l[Aiil”i€€di
an existing permit. This apart. is’i«nc”e. the pet_i_tioncr’sjpetition is
admittedly pending befo1*e’L’the petitioner
has challenged the the inter–state
agreement, it has no interest
which that petitioner being
entitled {to ‘court, the petitioner had filed
objections iiopithe idraft”int’er–state agreement and was also
~’V.p_represe.nted by c”o’u«ns_e_l.»in the proceedings. Insofar as the
V’-,pa.n:iicipya’ti.o’n second respondent in the proceedings is
concerned,_ .iteAii_s7:not necessary for the petitioner to prove main
fldes. ‘l’he’mere fact that he was holding the post of Chairman of a
iijifgdisentitled him to participate in the proceedings.
Respondent 3 to l8 being direct beneficiaries of such illegal
é
29
proceedings, are not in 21 position to raise objections to the writ
petition.
E3. in considering the above facts and circurn«st.zinr:es;’.;’the
learned counsel for the petitioner has placed. th’t:._
foliowing judgments, insofar as his c=onte.ntion;–.tI*iat ‘procee_diwz1:g$
conducted by the Principai Secretary;xTi”an$pofi’..AjDeVpa1itmentt>
cannot be construed as the proceediihgswcondocted the State
Government-
1. ManqkLa1 i,=§'[%1>r.13§§;;9m hem; 11957 SCR 575]
2. Gwapezzzzoz1vagés;;:ast¢=.1e;za.@171″0111m v.Ar1dl/zra Pradesh Stare
Road Trz:mp’1;r1 t;’o1é’,r;15;ra1{;’:1n and Arzother, AIR 1959 SC 308,
3. G111f(1;1j9c1.Ili Naige.$iviar(1:Rc1(1 and Orlzers v. The Stare of/mdhra
A it Agé}%z1;1e;s}11akzciiggrlzm, AIR 1959 SC 1376,
K; .V[.i<'V"r–*.,r_1i.1']1';*4.Vr.iizVi'«=.}i,1.~ Union Qflndia [AIR 1970 SC 150],
5. ii Kff.i’f11?s£:iiBL{.S’ Service P91. Ltd. vs State Of Haryana & 0119
[AIR..1ii9{§5VSC 1551],
it A’ B-;.’.’Ra}ic1172aIh11lla Khan And 0125′. vs Stare Of Karnaraka And
“‘._iOrsiii[AlR 1989 Kar. 157]
5
8 M
30
7. KR.Bhaskaranancla v. Stare of Karnataka [AIR 1998 Kar
182],
8. Mar Modern Cooperative Transport Society Limlfcd v.
Financial CoImn.is.s’i()m3r’ and Secretczry to G({y’.e_};l:1lf%zl5:f;£.ll”Qf
Haryana and Another [AIR 2002(6) SCC 269]
9. Delhi Fin. Corpn. And Am-. V. RajngArzazzd”Ana;<jn{;<.2094"
UUSCC625]
I0. M.P.Special Police E.S'lC1bll.S'Vli'r.":3'_(','I'il v.KS'ltIfe iancl lE;:rllier.§"",
[(2004) 8 SCC 788].
The Counsek for :’t*he relliliédl upon the
foliowing judgments to contélljdl not entitied for
preferenvtifillllllffealjjjenlfih finder Chapter-V of the MV
Act:~ 8 V’ 8 8 8
1. SL4peirinIen’denf ‘:’?émer1zbrar1c*er, State Of West Bengal
l_/:.§fg.CQ_}*povz’azi(jn’Qf__Calc’utIa [AIR 1967 SC 997 1,
.;’Si2_gr_v8i:1gl1:’&__Or.v Vs. Union Oflndia And Others’ [1984 (1)
‘V 3. lfan v. Siare Transport Appellate Tribunal and Others
8. – ;1__ 987*sypp.sCC 67] 1.
§
Further that the proceedings are vitiated, as at the relevant
point of time, he was also holding the post of Chairman_io»f. the
ST{} and further to contend that no special considerjat’i’onj_~
shown to the STU as the State Undertaltipng is =
preferential treatment in proceeding u’rider;”Chapter-‘Vjiiofi”tlie._N2’l.”\Z
Act and further that the pe1’mitsiiof~~.somei”private -‘being»i’
included in the agreement, is arbitrrars/’;v-_
Since the petitioner admittedly no
longer holds interi«is’}§21ite pe_r1ni_t,”an’y’ proceediings pending before
the apex:Courtitin.thisiiregard…ls wholly’ irrelevant, as the petitioner
is admittedly not in seeking to question the inter-
state agreenienta Thei-e-fore, the primary objection of the
respondents thatthe petitioners have no locus Stcmdi to question
theinter–st2itci,l_agreeh1ent would have to be accepted.
i’Tho”ugh’iithe counsel for the petitioners took great pains in
{seeking to urge the several grounds in the writ petition and
____””extiensive1y referred to the case–law, the petitions would fail on the
Z5
preliminary objection that the petitioner does not admittedly hold
inter-state permits. Though the petitioners in WP 793/2()Q’8.._h~aVve
asserted that they are permit hoiders, the vehement–A”‘deni:ziI
statement by the respondents, is not met~–by the _t)etiiti4onier.sj.and
therefore, it would have to be heid thin tile-eipetiti’o.ne~:s «hzi
made out any case for interference’by”‘this court, doesiiit merit V
consideration in addressin the se’v’er3’is-f_:41’oVfi1ads urged.
Accordingly, the writ pe~titions zire.–d.is’1’nIi_’ssed.
sa/-3' , i Iudqé