IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 22468 of 2003(Y)
1. N. REGHUNATHA PAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
Dated :02/01/2007
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN, J.
```````````````````````````
W.P.(C) NO. 22468 OF 2003
```````````````````````````
Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2007
J U D G M E N T
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
WPC 22468/2003
: 2 :
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
WPC 22468/2003
: 3 :
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.
4. It is averred by the petitioner that he applied before
the 1st respondent for the grant of counter signature for variation
of the existing permit. He also preferred an application for
replacement of the vehicle by stage carriage KA.21/A 2777 and
both the applications came up for consideration. Exhibit P5 is a
common order passed in those applications. In Exhibit P5, though
the STA rejected the application for replacement, he did not
consider the application for counter signature in respect of the
existing stage carriage. On the other hand, he considered the
application for counter signature in respect of the proposed
vehicle to be replaced namely KA.21/A 2777.
5. In the circumstances, Exhibit P6 is quashed. As far as
Exhibit P5 is concerned, it is set aside to the limited extent of
refusal to consider the claim for counter signature as against the
WPC 22468/2003
: 4 :
vehicle KA.16/A 3393. In other words, the finding as regards the
replacement of the vehicle with another vehicle is concerned, it
has already reached the finality. In the circumstances, there will
be a direction to the STA to reconsider the matter as to whether
the counter signature in the permit could be issued in respect of
the vehicle KA.16/A 3393 as applied for. The matter is remanded
to the STA for such consideration.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE
Rp