-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA,
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF' APRIL, 2009* 7
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE RAM=MQ~msN"R,1§§1jI3Y"
WRI'i'PE'}'1'1'ION Nos. 1o6s8T&.\ 10539/%2oo9A(3a;\k) h
BETWEEN:
RAVISHANKAR
s/0. GOPAL SHERIGAR __ .
AGE «. 34 YEARS V
R/AT LALITHMAHAL, 'PERiD}1KI' "
MORAL POST, KARKAL!-fg 'rALu«K
uDU1>IDIS'I§RIc:'r.V *
4. PEFITIONER
(COMMQN)
(av SR1, {"xOPAL,J:\ I)'\/)
THE' SEER ETARVY % V
" REGIONAL TRA:&:s:?>0RT AUTHORITY
'(:3§?jM C NAGASHREE, AGA)
UDUPI. *
. .. RESPONDENT
(COMMON)
'§rHEsE wan' PEFITIGNS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
':;26,_A'N1:> 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION 01? INDIA PRAYING
Ti) DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ASSfGh¥ THE TIMINGS
i--N ACC€)RDANCE WITH THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE
RTA UDUPI AS PER RESOLUTION DTD. 6.9.06 VIDI3
V ANNEXURE--~A IN RESPECT OF' SERIAL NGSJL65 83 162 {N
SUJECT' NOS. 1 13/664)? 62. 1 1€}fG6-30'? RESPECFEVELY.
W
Z
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRLHEARING, THIS BAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Common questions of fact and that of ”
decision making, hence with 2115 “Consent
counsel for the parties, the petifiohs ”
together, finally heard this V
common order.
2. The rested right for
assigiment _ V
,J(§upi, consequent upon
the in the meeting
of the Regior;aliVV”Fret’jspi§rt Authority, for short, RTA,
_ A’ to the petitioners but several
otiier. for routes claimed to R ‘interior
Mofossfl without touching the area restricted in
_ flthe Notification’ and hence these petitions
..I{ers”ia$rit of mandamus. % K
1?:
Q/’
-3…
3. Writ of mandamus is not a ._
awarded only in the exercise of A
and to compel parties to aV(:t,fi
conscience ought to be of Writ
does not foliow as a neeessiijfr, showing of legal right.
% 4. In sate of Haryanaz
the Apex
——– -V’? i§3§:.;elej;aenta1j7″‘”though it is to be
reetateti “ask for a mantiamus
without _a’ ‘1eg’aI’ There must be a
judicialfy enfoieeable right as well as a legally
right~——–before one suffering a legal
, ..§*iex{anC¢ ask for a mandamus.”
_:It’V’eéa:;elsewhere said that a Mandamus is a
‘drasfic extraordinary Writ to be issued only when:
is a clear lea; right in the petitioner to the
” sought; (1)) an imperative duty upon the
jresgmnfieni; to perform accompanied by a refusal to do
ea pa
§’ AIR 197′; SC 275
-4-
so; (C) the iack of any other adequate remedjr; (t ”
properly invoked jurisdiction of t.’ne’Co1 H u ] V’
6. Mandamus is not aVwrit “of
rests largely in the “the oouxft’ hflt
be granted when it work 1: fior”‘i11″t§rod11ce
confusion and disordet t prove
unavaifing. . . . . . . .
H TA examination of the
resolution that the RTA is said to
have ;~ atlopficafions for grant of fresh
:,,,for’it;te1io1;””Mofi1ssi1 routes without touching
in the Magisterial Notification’, to
_ conoiude”fi1:né’t there are no lwa}. impediment to allow the
H ..f§.pp}ioaiio1§.s, While observm’ g that if is convinced with
to introduce more stage carriage services on
T above routes. §
_ Vki
E
-5-
8.” At the threshold, it must be noticed
resolution falls short of 3. speaking orcier, since»ve:’tsfho1e.A i’
lot of applications are clubbed togetheri. ii i
application of mind to each
relevant routes, and absence of a
precondition for grant the Motor
Vehicles Act, 198%,” ‘permits, in
gross vio1atiori«’of_ resolution is
cryptic does”ir191;_veLI1iI1ié;te the routes for which the
permits are’isoiught:f,’o:*:’f’ stating that the routes
are iviofi-giisii. routes,” Without reference to each of the
‘i*outes,p ciiseiosesthe haste with which the decision is
A 9. ” jurisdiction of the RTA to grant permits
the Motor Vehicles Act, depends upon the
“ex-.:istence or non-existence of a scheme duly published
” ‘under Section 100(3) of the Act and in order to exercise
a power under Section 80 of the Act, it is a necessary
M
-6-
concomitant to keep in mind Section 104 the
Thus if the route is a notifie either. ‘witoti-;:;.1.’.ii£}r’i’».VA it
partial ban for private operators, to.
that the RTA would have a it ‘
permit on the said of law
to secure a jointroute in respect of
which a perrgxit’ operator,
tiefore gant a permit by
the R’i’;fk, is iifz§:erai§ive.44v”*’..
10. w’Inxtereeting1y,’«fgherefore, there was a need for
* exai;i1ine..as to whether or not the so eaiied
L_””m.teIio’i*. routes” the details of which are not
the resolution, did or did not cut
“across or traverse the notified route. if it did, the
of law is not to gent permit for such routes
held by the Apex Court in gene -v~ Ashrafulia
Khan and other-33.
3 Alli 2002 SC 621?
-‘f-
11. The principles laid down by a learned
Judge of this Court in KSRTC –v- E _
foilowing a host of decisions, in tI1¢AA»Vcircun1s:’an.’:cc’s’».is
apposite:
1) That a Scheme duly pu}A1_is3;ged findér
100(3) of the Motor vehicies:_”Ac:, 19 88 is ‘fl1e :§
law and the violati-9;: ofthe’
viewed in the fiolation
of any other p1ovisi.o_r;,_ pf tE1§~
2) T’§at._in 104 of the M.V.Act,
of ‘RA. as the case may
be ié Léisablgri issuing a permit except
_ _ .. “accoI’ndan<;c§_____§vith the provisions of the
., .__puhlished under Section 100(3);
exercise of its power under
' so of the Act, the Authority
_ céiicerned shall have to keep in View the
A' ' pfévisions of Section. 104 of the Act and
— m.ake sum that the grant of pexmit by it is
not in vioiation of any scheme duly
published under Section 100(3)-;
Q .
{LR 1996 KAR 293 ‘L/’
…8..
4) That jurisdiction of the Authority, to a VV
permit would depend upon _t11€3,’:C3’§(3..S§L.C.ficv’ff’~,(.):§’ ‘_
nonexistence of a Schc1ne:=,and…ti;§: of
partial ban it may »c<_)1:1ta1:I'a._ 2, VV "
private operator, a
notified route. £)ete1*:11i;;;%ifi:§:1~Qf these.
Wouid be esgéjfiflai f a$
jurisdictional fa¢5Mt:s the
Auflxorityi ' cg;nccIiiéd,::c-égizzgtot' ' proper
decistidn
5) ~”i’h”at pazfof the Authority
:V’.concer§1éri.’,’~-1::o”it’self to the pmvisions
()i’Scction to make an order
. _ conL5i*stV_é:’1,at,, would amount to faflum
Vvits’ exercise its jurisdiction
and an error of law which would
‘ .. order passed by it.”
= in the circumstances, the petitioners cannot
to have a<::qm'red a clear legal right far issue 9f a
" ef mandamus, on the basis of a resolution which
' does not stand the test ef law. issuing a writ of
mandamus, wiil Work injustice, intrwuce confusion and
E/?$\
«9-
disorder in the mind of the RTA, more appibpfiaiegr»
the light of the observations supra.
The writ petitions are meI’itV_
accordingly rejected.