{"id":53851,"date":"2010-08-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010"},"modified":"2014-09-27T13:44:12","modified_gmt":"2014-09-27T08:14:12","slug":"k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"K Mir Akram vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
K Mir Akram vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Anand Byrareddy<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 6\"'I)AY OF AUGUST, \n\nBEFORE:\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AN.AN[) IsYIII?I]gI3I:I3y  I II A\nWRIT PETITION N0. 793_Of?~2()0$'AA\u20acMV\")-   7\n\nWRIT PETITION I\\?O'.4--..EI86 OF 2008 I1vI'*~.()-.II,I  \n\nIN WRIT PETITION NO, 793 OF..i2'Q\u00a7)8'{MVI.' 'I \u00ab \n\nBETWEEN:\n\n1.\n\nK. Mir AImIm,._    _  .\nAged     E' \nS\/0 Late I3}.-. VNHI'3':f\\ZE1[{71-, _  ' \" '\n\nI>:Iop:I De\u00a25c_an  'e;~vi_ce,\"  A\nNo.50,' Kh\u00a3I2i:\"SITc\u00a7;I;I~.I_ ._ I\nBaisavanagudi';  V.  V'\nBang\u00e9I!QTe.v-- 560 \n\n \"3'\u00ab:SIff'.Tf'. Shanti  \u00ab _____ .. s\n   ;I'bQut 40 years,\n E' = . W259' ':'S_Ti;  Manohar,\n %2II'1'2I,IA2;mI'a Buiiding,\n VKa]_:1s'I\u00a73u;I}j1zI,\n Ba--hgaiijre -- 560 002.\n\n...PETITIONERS\n\n'AA5_hriVI\"Puthige R. Ramesh, Advocate)\n\n\n\n.x'3x..1\u00a7T..1..3...I.\n\nThe. State of Karnataka\nBy its Secretary,\nTransport Department,\nM.S. Building,\n\nDr. B.R. Ambedkar Road,\nBangalore - 560 001.\n\nD. Tangaraj, IAS\n\n(Deleted as per Order dated'v'VC'i'5.:_:'d\u00a7\n\nKarnataka State Road':T1'a::1sp\u00a7}1ft. \"  _\n\nCorporation, _\nBy its Managing Director; V\n\nCentral oamesttta 1<.\u00e9H.  u D '\n\nBanga_1_ore.3--   __  \n\nState tom mil "i.'\u00a7\u00a7IVVad._:j' t C \nBy its Sccret\u00e9ij-'y}'t   _ \nHome   \nChe tahaui ?- .600.  V . \n\n "3'~Sta_te E_xpreaS's \u00ab'I7.1i21t2sp()rt Corporation\n (Ta;:u'1et;tdu) Ltd.\n\n ~ Managing Director,\n._  VPaivlz{\\_za__r1 \n'  VChennaiV_v=' 600 002.\n\nS'. .S. Motor Service,\n\n ' *=,_By"its Managing Director,\n* --_ MC. Ananthashankar, -\n\nAnekal,\nBangaiore Rurai District.\n\n$\n\n0,08)"  \n\n\n\nK. Anantharaju,\n\nMajor,\n\nProp: Madhusudan Motor Service.\nKolar Main Road,\n\nKolar -- 563 IOE.\n\nSelvanathan, Major\nBus Operator,\nMain Road,\nK.G.F.,\n\nKoiar District.\n\nRamakanya Devi,\n\nMajor,  \nW\/o Late Sri. D.P. Sharma, \nSharma Transport,   --- i\nA.V. Road, Kalasipaiiy-a, \nBangalore -- 560 002*.'  '\n\nS\/o'\u00abI{;. \nA.v.'R._o'ad., Kalasip'aIy.a,\n\n5 B3r1ga1or*e, {S60 O02.\n\n\" 'V V S1'e_Khader-gab,\n\n %Jzii'n\"'Ten1_'o'i~e' Road,\n\n V Vis_hi\/eemvarapuram,\n Ba-ngariore * 560 004'.\n\no---._Ja i\"'Vijai Bhupathy. Major,\n _,--Prop: Moder Travels,\n\nShani-car Mutt Road,\nMysore * 575 00!.\n\n\n\n18. GM. Aswath Reddy, Major,\nS\/o Muniswamy Redcly,\nProp: Jai Bharath Motor Service,\nGunjur, Via Varthur   \nBangalore Rural Sistrict.  _\n\n(By Shri. KM. Shivayogiswamy, High Court Goveriitttieiltt Pleader \n\nfor Respondent No.1, Shri. B.V.S. Rat), Advocate.;fotf\"aRespondeVi1t\nNO.3, Shri. B.N. Jayadeva, Advoc:atelwforfRespondent'No..5--,,Sl<1fi.\nB. Prabhudevaru, Advocate for Respondent  "Sihri.t C.V.p\nKumar, Advocate for Respondent No.1 'l,"l3 and  *B.R.S.- A\nGupta, Advocate for Respondent No.8 & 14, 'Sl\u00a7r'i.'  Achar,\nAdvocate for Respondent, 'No.7  !.,.7',-.S"i'~1.rAi. S.V.'vKris'nnaswa1ny,\nAdvocate for Responder1t,_i\\'o.6-i.  16 and Respondent\n\nNo.4, Respondent No. 10 are Servedi'   ..\n\neaaeakf,\n\nThis iV\\?v'tiiv't_ Peii;iit'io_n"\u00bb.,i's filedwvunder Article 226 of the\nConstitution of.lneia,upray'ing*-t.o' set-aside the order the Inter State\nAgreement "as 'notiiiied'*~.__i"ri\u00ab.="the Notification bearing No.\nSARIE\/1812\/SAEPA 2006 dated 7"' January, 2008 at Annexure--A\nand etc.-, A  *\n\n ;_\u00a71.__.wt\u00a7u'i;~e*r1T1oNNo.686 OF 2008 (MV)\n\nA \n\n_ R. Ra'nga--natha Reddy,\n\n~ .. ,.   V'-Aged about 65 years,\n\n'' igSl'o*Late R. Rama Recldy,\n\n* T  14"" Cross, 7" Main,\n\n~   Wilson Garden,\n\n  Bangalore W 560 027. ...PETlTlONER\n\n\n\nAND:\n\nThe State of KZi1'I1Zl{8.k\u00a31\nBy its Secretary,\nTransport Department,\nMS. Building,\n\nDr. BR. Ambedkar Road,\nBangalore --- 560 001.\n\nD. Tangaraj, IAS\n\n(Deleted as per Orc{et=~\n\nKarnataka State Road..Trs1nsVpotfi  D D\n\nCorpor2rti_o.n,a  ' V   \nBy its  Di'reC:':or,  'V V' D\nCentral Off-i.ee$',\u00b0--VK,H--.{jRoad," _   \u00bb\nBa_ngalore''-*-'5V6O027,'"--A V of \n\nState-.of    '  V. '\nByits 'Secretary,' V.  " \nHome ..Department," V.\n\n Chennai  cocoons.\n\n  Express Transport Corporation\n' 'V V ('fr3ti1i1"'Nadu) Ltd.\n\n V.B"y .i"t_;V, _1\\\/}2i:tv1Va'ging Director,\n V Pa\u00a7]ava.r_trSz1Iz1i,\n Clzennzii ---- 600 002.\n\n'  S.vVK.M.S. Motor Service,\n _,-'By its Managing Director,\n\nC. Ananthashankar,\nAnekal,\n\nZ\n\n\n\n1.0.\n\nt'\\.y,, =  ~\n\nBangalore Rural District.\n\nK. Anzmtharaju,\n\nMajor.\n\nProp: Madhusucian Motor Service,\nKolar Main Road,\n\nKo1ar--563 I01.  \n\nSeivanathan, Major\nBus Operator,\nMain Road,\nK.G.F.,\n\nKolar District.\n\nRamakanya Devi,  \nMajor, '  \n\nSharrrra"'"I"1'2;r1\u00a7pfj-rt,'   _ H\nA-Vr,,R0a\ufb01r\u00bb ii'-i=:'%..1?'.5iii?.\u20ac"'1\u00a7\/:.iEi'\u00a7 M . , \n  \nK.iTh1:\u00abumu:;hgr,,rMaia. \nS\/0 Ka\u00a7iiyappan,'A._ " . \n\n; AjjLipu1'a P.os'r,~ "\n "i'\u00ab:Ko_11eg,a1 Tql,' \u00ab ..... .. e\n Ch3'inaraj_anagar District.\n\n VP\u00a7'i'\u00e9if"'}\\,.Fag\u00e9x:t}ra,\n\nMajor,"  '\n\n Prop: Shankar Vitta] Bus Service,\n\nI"2,__ Kaveri Nilaya,\n\n' ._D Street, Fort,\n-- _,-Bangalore -- 560 002.\n\nG.T. Venkataswamy Reddy,\n\n'5'\n\nW10 Late_"Srr'i",;VT.,D.P. ishag-ma,  V A'\n\n\n\n13.\n\n14.\n\nAged about 78 years,\n\nS\/o Gunjur Thimmaiah,\n\nProp: Vinayaka Motor Service,\nA.V. Road,\n\nBangalore -- 560 002.\n\nHanume Gowda,\n\nMajor,\n\nProp: LakshmiSaraswathi\nMotor Service,\n\nS\/0 H.C. Narayanappa,\nDispensary Road,\nKaiasipalya,\n\nBangalore -- 560 002.\n\nKalaivani Ammai, Major', 0'   \nProp: Bharathi Motor .Ser.\\\/ice,  "\n\nAshok    \n\n   \n\n Ganesh, 'M-a%j'or,, 0 . '\n\n  \n20\/ 1 , Swamy mp:e,;:,';\n\n Road, Ka'lasipa1ya,\nji ' ':'\u00ab:Bar}ga.}_ore --"56.0___002.\n\n' j e K.  Major,\n 'S\/('J K~\u00a71ade'I'Sab.\n\n  0Jain_ Terjt\ufb01le Road.\n\n Vi~3hveShwarapu1'a:11,\n\nBangalore -- 560 004.\n\n.   Vijai Bhupathy, Major,\n\nProp: Moder Travels,\nShankar Mutt Road,\n\n3\n\n\n\nMysore -- 575 001.\n\n18. GJVI. Aswath Reddy, Major,\nS\/0 Muniswamy Raddy,\nProp: Jai Bharath Motor Service,\nGunjur, Via Varthur\nBangalore Rural District.\n\n(By Shri. C.V. Kumar, Advocate for"aRes;'po.nde'11t_ii'\u00a7iO.lili:a--ndi'i1.\u00a7_S,\n\n.. ._RE;SiI?QtSI'\u00a3\u00a7E-N'1"S' t as    \n\nShri. B. Prabhudevaru, Advocate for Re'spo--ndentjN"o,A9;' Shrig \u00a7<Z.i\\i\/lg\nShivayogiswamy, Advocate for _R'e..spond'ent NO'..l, M.R.\\r'~.U\n\nAchar, Advocate for Respondentlxlo. Tiand"-i7,K:Sh1'i. B.N.\nJayadeva, Advocate for Res-pontleia NC)'.5v,.. Shri. S.V.\nKrishnaswamy, Advocateaifor RespoVnd.eat"'NAo.6, 12, 15 and 16,\nShri. NE. Nagesh, Advocate'forv.iR\u00a7:spond'eVnt No.2, Respondent\nNO.4 Served).    ..  '-\n\n'taasaxg "\n\nTi*1iisiiiiVv'.:iiE_V P<'i3i:ftiiiit)ii1'\u00bb.Vi.iS filieidwiunder Article 226 of the\nConstitution ofInciija,prayi.ng*to' set-aside the order the Inter State\nAgreement as 'noti_t'ied"~.__i'n."the Notification bearing No.\n\nSARIE\/l8l}'S'AEPA .2006 dated 7"' January, 2008 at Annexure--A\n\nand et_.\u00ab.;.\u00bb, _  A *\n\n_    "petitions having been heard and reserved on\n L 15.()6v.2Gv.14Oia'r'idTcoming on for pronouncement of orders this day,\nihe"C_ou2""i; de.l_iverc-'d the follovving:~\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
 A.  Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the<\/p>\n
_i  respoiidents.\n<\/p>\n
\u00e9’><\/p>\n
IO<\/p>\n
2. The brief facts that are pertinent to dispose of these<\/p>\n
petitions are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
In WP 793\/2008, the petitioners are said to <\/p>\n
of a Stage Carriage Permit on the inter\u00bbstate rtiateplsg\ufb01anga\u00e9ltire’tgxi <\/p>\n
Hosur Cattle Farm and Bangalore to[Denkanj.iko_ttai,’ ‘r_els~p’ec_tlilx{el)”.<\/p>\n
The first respondent is the State of l(arnat2ikefe’t’.”i’ _s\u00a7eCond:\u00b0.<\/p>\n
respondent is the Principal S\u20acCiil’ll(“,-T,\u00a3:t!”j,-‘,,_ to t’l~..ei_l department of
\ntransport, who was alst)””thle.,exp~eel’ficlie-l,[VC,lhairmz1n of the State
\nTransport Undertakings (hereinaftenreferredito as ‘ the STUS’ for
\nbrevity)!’ The’.ilV\u00a7i_rdlt;{:spoln(lei1t islieaeet’ the STUs in the State of
\nKarnatal<la\u00ab,V The 'fon'rth_ires_pondent is the State of Tamil Nadu.<\/p>\n
Whileahe filth..:respondentl:is one of the srus of the State of<\/p>\n
Tamil  The other respondents are private operators.<\/p>\n
l*  It . pisiithe contention on behalf of the petitioners that the<\/p>\n
T"~.t.._l_"\u00bb.third respondent was the sole STU of the State of Karnataka.<\/p>\n
 T.l'E_leweiver, it is now constituted of three undertakings namely, the<\/p>\n
 e…Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, North–West<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
Karnataka Road Transport Corporation and North–East Karnataka<\/p>\n
Road Transport Corporation. In terms of Section  the<\/p>\n
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as. Ifthei <\/p>\n
for brevity), which corresponds to Section_88(5′)’  <\/p>\n
Motor Vehicies Act, 1939 (hereinaftei’:.refe_r1*ed to~.a;s  <\/p>\n
brevity), the States of Ka1’natai{a,:v4iain_d Ta’m,i__1 N\ufb01tdti entered’.<\/p>\n
into an interstate agreement as i973, which isreferred to
\nin the petition as the principai,iagreeinen_t, ~T_h,is was supplemented<\/p>\n
as on 7.6.i975,,– to.,_Vincorporate:.’changes.,wa\u00a7’ranted by ef\ufb02ux of<\/p>\n
time and there was,.a ‘furthe–r,’jvsa’p–p]em’entai agreement notified on<\/p>\n
l.iO.20C’.7. ObjeiC’ti.ofn,:s’we’iie\u00a5i’ri-vited to the said notification and the<\/p>\n
petitioner had, siubrnitted._his:_it3bjections, wen within the prescribed<\/p>\n
 A’ timeg\ufb02one’ of the ‘niain__objections was that the second respondent,<\/p>\n
  was._,tihe;’e.bai–1fman of the STU of the Karnataka State should<\/p>\n
not   the proceedings, at which the basis would be<\/p>\n
i’i.conside’i’ir1g the benefits to be conferred on the STUS. inspite of<\/p>\n
   _sarne, the second respondent did participate in the proceedings.<\/p>\n
  ,  petitioners had filed a Wri\u00bbg)etiti0n before this court seeking<\/p>\n
consideration of his representation, which was for inclusion of the<\/p>\n
route ~\u00bb Bangalore to Coimbatore, in the interstate -\u00aba’gre’e_m–eAnt.<\/p>\n
That petition was disposed of with a direction  conTsiderit’iiei”.<\/p>\n
representation of the petitioners. rneanytthile} the\u00bb<\/p>\n
proceedings in respect of the third supplemental iav_gre*e1*nei*:.t”wpereu<\/p>\n
conducted, with the second respionident in “tl.1i.e”‘C.hair.7_ This was<\/p>\n
specifically questioned    Vjpggg\/20979
\nwhich according tothe  on the date the
\npresent petition    llimejanwhile, the second
\n and the agreement has<\/p>\n
attainedgifina’lity.”lx’:1-ti’is’that'”–.agreen1ent which is sought to be<\/p>\n
challenged”onliseveiral grount\ufb02s.\n<\/p>\n
 _;i’insofai”‘a3..W_Pv686\/2008 is concerned, the same is aiso<\/p>\n
 ‘t’i.l.ed~by*alpevtition__er, who claim to hold Stage Carriage Permits in<\/p>\n
reispeict of thei__ii’iterstt1te route ~ Bangalore to Coimbatore valid up<\/p>\n
i\ufb01to 30.121311, alleging the same infirrnities insofar  the<\/p>\n
 fina_li_s\u00a7ation of the third supplemental agreement is concerned.<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
E3<\/p>\n
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, .8″-,while<\/p>\n
elaborating on the grounds raised would contend..~\u00ab.t–hat\u00ab..__Sect:i’on<\/p>\n
88(5) of the Act, falling under Chapter-V, ct)n_fe..rs_:}3ovvers8._on1 tiieui <\/p>\n
State Governments to enter into 1’ec:i_pror;aslAfiagreementsu<\/p>\n
themselves, keeping in mind the’\u00ab–intei’e’st_o’f the 2travel\u00e9ligngglipulblicllv<\/p>\n
and to ensure a coordinated   Section 88(1)
\nof the Act contemplates V    Section 72 of
\nthe Act by the ti*a_nsport   not be valid
\nin another  is\ufb02lcountersigned by the
\ntransportaluthoi\/it\ufb01ielsiig\u00e9f’  However, the requirement
\nof  not required to be followed if<\/p>\n
suchA.permits’are’granted  pursuant to an interstate agreement<\/p>\n
Senteired Eiritc)lVd’betweenll’the said States. One other advantage of the<\/p>\n
8″‘perLr’_1_1it ‘oe:i”n,g cove’red under an interstate agreement is that, it is<\/p>\n
sufficient ‘for’the holder to pay motor vehicle tax to the home<\/p>\n
 ._:State, uiiiike normal requirement of paying such tax to both the<\/p>\n
States. Further, having regard to the law as laid down by the apex<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
Court in the case of As\/zwin Kumar vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1999<\/p>\n
SC 3888, a permit on an interstate state route cannot beigrstnted<\/p>\n
unless the route is covered by an interstate agreeme_n’t’;” t heisearep<\/p>\n
multiple advantages that would apply toma route”Co–vered”VunCle1’an= . 88<\/p>\n
interstate agreement. It is pointed”i:4ou:”‘L;at ‘in “~te1’ins :”iof’?:he<\/p>\n
agreement, there are more than fresh igrants _rhadei_i’1’1favour oft 8<\/p>\n
the STUS of Karnataka and ‘i”am.i.l:’Nad–~u, whereas  a single
\nfresh grant is made in favou_r”oi\u00b0iprivaleoperators, though the
\nbenefits have  (:0nf:3:ii’re\u00a7cli_:Qsn  private operators,<\/p>\n
which were in respelctiof  were earlier granted to<\/p>\n
the rn.\n<\/p>\n
It isll”i1t;?ti1erlllpoliiiptedtlout that though an STU would be<\/p>\n
– V. p_ entitled for preferent\u00abia_i treatment, under the provisions of Chapter<\/p>\n
 VI of it is not contempiated under the provisions of<\/p>\n
 V_ioiii:t3i}el:MV Act. in that background, the participation of<\/p>\n
  “-the Pririci_pal Secretary of the transport department, who was also<\/p>\n
   as the Chairman of the STU, occupying the chair at the<\/p>\n
 V. .proceedings to hear the objections in respect of the supplemental<\/p>\n
Z<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
agreement, are vitiated on the ground of bias. The other
\ncontention is that the proceedings conducted by the Principal
\nSecretary to the transport department, cannot be construed as<\/p>\n
proceedings conducted by the State Government. <\/p>\n
emphasized that the apparent benefits conf’erred’Vo:n <\/p>\n
even though the said undertakings were’ not ,_entitled.:to-haveihariy<\/p>\n
preferential treatment under the; provisionisi. of Ch’ilipteriV “of”the’a<\/p>\n
MV Act, would also vitiate the proceedings. if ‘-
\nIt is the further grie_i}ance.’_fo’fi.thie~\u00abpetiitioners that insofar as
\nsome of the private operato_rs. are vi.pcon’ceVr’ne,d;” inspite of their<\/p>\n
permits khaviiig.Vbeen”set’*as’i’de’ or directed to be cancelled in<\/p>\n
judicial profce_efdi,ngs._ tfhey  been included in the agreement.<\/p>\n
 _In  regard, thedearned counsel for the petitioner has ‘placed<\/p>\n
 re.liance li’aifge_ number of authorities.\n<\/p>\n
   6,12,l5 and 16 have filed statement of<\/p>\n
 i’i.objections”:.to contend that the petitioners in WP 793\/2008 have<\/p>\n
  V”-iinco_rre,’ctly contended that they are holding Stage Carriage Permits<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
and if they are not holding any such inter–state permits, they are<\/p>\n
not entitled for any relief in the writ petition. Henvceti,._lin_ the<\/p>\n
absence of any material piaced before the court, ti\u00a7i”sul;is’t–anti~a__te_<\/p>\n
their contention, it wouid be misleading on””ti’1e::’_part. of t_he”x<\/p>\n
Qetitioners to seek to chailenge the inilillgniedt.:\u00a7otiific’at.lon.l   ‘<\/p>\n
6. The second responctentl’i’h,ais’, in turrz, fiied statement of<\/p>\n
objections to contend that.__he  serv’in.g.as’\u00aba Principal Secretary-<\/p>\n
to the transport departinent..o.fithe {3overrimeirtti._of Karnataka at the
\nrelevant points 3-of \u00a7ti’injre.. and _the_…lpjroposal’ii to enter into third
\nsupplemenitt\ufb02’agreexnent _iivri.:tlt theH”S”tate of Tamil Nadu was in
\nterms of ‘Section Act and even before issuing the<\/p>\n
draft notification, there were severai discussions between the two<\/p>\n
lStateli”Tra”nSP\u00a71t.’authorities and it is after a consensus was arrived<\/p>\n
at,thatftheiidraftinotification was published inviting objections.<\/p>\n
During November 2007, the Government of Karnataka was<\/p>\n
“-Ti’L1.n’clt3.r_A’i.–‘the Governor’s rule and in view of the change of<\/p>\n
 u.G.overnment, he was the Chairman, Karnataka State Road<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
private operators since only a handful of private operators have<\/p>\n
been included in the agreement is not Correct, since admhiitte-dly<\/p>\n
there are private operators who have been incl_1_:\u00a7led*\u00ab ri:;!f_3eg_<\/p>\n
agree ment.\n<\/p>\n
Insofar as the allegation of bia\u00e9eis1’\u00a2o~2’icern_ed,pthei liearni-ed<\/p>\n
counsel for respondent no.2 pl21ees_vireliance’ orlat_hev-de”eiS’ion “of the” V<\/p>\n
apex Court in Delhi Fit3.at1L’e   Ancmd,
\n(2004)(]1) SCC 625 and pliaiicges  following passage<\/p>\n
therein:-\n<\/p>\n
 ‘i.li?'(,l!ii:?ltlfI  ct judge in h.t’.v own
\nc’ait,s’e,” Cam   to cases where the person
\nc'()t1c’iem’ec1′ Ila: ti.iAi,t9ei{S’r.1Vtttziil interest or has’ himxelji
\n_a’lrtegd_y’ tlwze’ mrhe  or taken. at dec’t’.s’t’tm in the matter
\ni\u20ac’t)r;_.Aeerr2teti. A\/Iiere’f_3f’i9ecczLt.ve cm r)_[f’iee oft: corporation\n<\/p>\n
 -tilt  tb..be the ctttIl20rit_y, d(‘)e.\\’ not by it.s’elf bring
\n  the clocrrine ‘no man. can be ct ‘jutige in
\n“=..l2i.s’ V,__.-du3v.=<tVii i"ctLtl\\'c1.' For that u'0c'trz't'z.e to come mm play it
\nttz"Lt..;\\'t3 be .s'I't0wtt that the Qfficer corteemed imx ct
\n'}'?\u20acI'.S'()IIal biax or c.'0rtne.c'{t'0Iz or at p(3I'.\\'()i'lCll t't'tIere.vI or<\/p>\n
"has ])\u20aci'.S'()I1\u00a31[1}? acted in the matter concerned cmcl\/or<\/p>\n
%<\/p>\n
hm' ctlrectcb' taken a dec':'.s'imI one way or the other<\/p>\n
whirl: he may he in.Ier'e.s'Iea' in .s'uppor'Iir1g. '<\/p>\n
And would contend that merely because he has presideid"-o:ve'ifv,4a<\/p>\n
meeting to finalise the third supplemental ag1'eeme_nt, . the" <\/p>\n
does not stand vitiated unless speci\ufb01c; eividencie is'p1aced,vb'e'fore<\/p>\n
the court that the second respondent had. any persginapi"interestuin'p<\/p>\n
the operation of the STU, in  theiidec'i'si'on reiied upon
\nby the petiti_oners in   :\u00ab{g'_,V'~1i(');"zp of Iririzhz, 1970 SC
\n150, could have been "pressed   involved the<\/p>\n
case of a member the  itsea' being one of the
\napplicants, and theirefoie, thiepersonal interest of the member was<\/p>\n
involved, whiehiwas n_oti't_hie\u00abcircumstance in the case on hand. it<\/p>\n
'His aisohpoiented outiiithat-\u00abthe petitioner's permit was not a saved<\/p>\n
"permi_tV. ..itheirefore, even according to the petitioner, the<\/p>\n
exclius\u00e9iion vo.f'thei petitioner's permit is the subject matter of<\/p>\n
 -‘\u00ab\u00ab.__iproceediirivg_s’ before the apex court and it cannot be said that it was<\/p>\n
 _b_t,–r’virf.aie of the participation of the second respondent that he has<\/p>\n
 “been deprived of any such right.\n<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
The allegation that the participation of the second<\/p>\n
respondent vitiated the proceedings is no longer 1*eisjV…._i:zreg;=z;~ <\/p>\n
the Supreme Court had occasion to considerf-an’–.i_ide_ntical._ <\/p>\n
circumstance in Kondala Ran us.\n<\/p>\n
wherein the participation of a minister in_approv.ingj;t.he sc_hen’1e_7<\/p>\n
under section 99 while being the   held not
\nto vitiate the decision to  ‘It is also pointed
\nout that though the petitioner”ha:d;  questioning
\nthe very  ”  -..se.condiiirespondent in those
\ncourt had not chosen to
\nrestrain   from participating in those<\/p>\n
proceedings. Insofaisesais the proceedings itself are concerned, it is<\/p>\n
 .e’t’nphiasi.zetil’*thiatthe seiieral proposals and suggestions made by<\/p>\n
the as well as the general public were taken into<\/p>\n
 _consid’erati–__on ~b’efore finalising the draft Notification and hence,<\/p>\n
iiea.\u00a7l_egati’on is baseless and unfair in seeking to challenge the<\/p>\n
._iisaii’d-Vnotification on the grounds urged.<\/p>\n
S<\/p>\n
7. The fifth respondent has also filed statement of<\/p>\n
objections to contend that the petitioner has not indicated.4’as_ to<\/p>\n
how he is an aggrieved party and there is no indication .<\/p>\n
he would be entitled to be granted a permit in-breispect of Vroutesi”<\/p>\n
covered by the inter–state agreement vnvhich: isiiu1ider”chai1en\u00a7zfit<\/p>\n
is the contention of the said resppondent thatthe’-.:ro’ute’s~are all”<\/p>\n
notified routes, in respectzof whi.-ch, permit ca’n”ibe-tgranted to
\nprivate operators and hence, thierigiijs ;’ab_so’ltiitei”yf_no scope for the<\/p>\n
petitioner to secure’aVp:”{>erm_’_it under  ‘ot’..th_efi routes. Further, the<\/p>\n
State of Tarhipl  several schemes making<\/p>\n
provision,fo–r  by the STUS of State of Tamil<\/p>\n
Nadu and  iA_par;t..’a’froin the existing private operators<\/p>\n
‘Vwho_”1iave__continueidto.__operate with valid permits in respect of<\/p>\n
i’=.iiitei”state’-routes;’ which schemes have been published with prior<\/p>\n
concurrence””ofiinthe Central Government and there are also area<\/p>\n
 ~=,_”s.chemes which are published, restricting the operation of services,<\/p>\n
 _dc-n”thef?routes lying in the respective revenue districts of Tamil<\/p>\n
 = Nadu, for exclusive operation by the STUS of Tamil Nadu and<\/p>\n
?’s’<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
Karnataka and existing private operators who are operating on
\nvalid permits. in the light ofthose schemes, there is also no scope<\/p>\n
for the petitioners or for any other operator to be granted..;i’~per;_nit<\/p>\n
afresh, even if a fresh route is opened up under__–ti1e  ~<\/p>\n
agreement and therefore, the petitioner_is~n_o_t entitled’  \u00bban’y.ireVlief. <\/p>\n
The petition is also bad for non~joinlder  <\/p>\n
niil<\/p>\n
Nadu, who are entitled to be gran’teo*~perm.its..undAerv_:the:iinpiignediV’<\/p>\n
intep-state agreement andzwho ha’\\’ie’e:i_i’sol”s-eeured p’erm’its and are
\noperating under the inipugriedj’iinterxstate.agreement. The
\nparticipation of the”‘gsecontl_ iespondent –ii’11~-ths\u00e9.i proceedings is also
\naddressed’toucon.te’i1ri”-that,sgtiheiobjection is not tenable as he had no<\/p>\n
personal intlerest  and was merely discharging his<\/p>\n
~ . g_ciutie_s’i:r1  o_fficial”‘capa;:’ity.\n<\/p>\n
V   “S, “Resp0nd*ent no.12 has questioned the loam’ standi of<\/p>\n
the petitioriers”ipreferring the writ petition as they do not possess<\/p>\n
 -<.__li~nter–sta'te.___'permits either from Bangalore to Coimbatore or<\/p>\n
23<\/span><\/p>\n
23<\/span><\/p>\n
Bangaiore to Denkanikota. Hence, the inter-\u00bbstate agreement does<\/p>\n
not affect their rights.\n<\/p>\n
9. Respondents 6,12,15,16 have filed  <\/p>\n
objections to the writ petition in ,’.’7\\\/P”4586\/20;LiSfdtid: “wotilld<\/p>\n
contend that the grounds raised in this wi:it’petition_*v_t are sirr1i1a~rto–.,<\/p>\n
the grounds raised in WP 20008\/2iO()\u00a7;.exCept  w1tjitiipetition,ii<\/p>\n
the petitioner had sought’fot’t~.a writ ofi”prohii”t1ition against the first
\nrespondent from finalising. the’-.inter–:sta’te,agreeinent. Insofar as
\nthe Stage Carriage \u00a7rar_initi”saidito  the petitioner being
\ninvalid 1, _the,:i’perrniit”‘has not been counter–signed
\nby the State “Franspo1’i:’atit’hor’i\u00abty” of Tami} Nadu at any point of<\/p>\n
time. in ggthisi regard, an appeal was filed before the State<\/p>\n
 I V iiT’1~3,n’sipori*ti’}\\ppc11ate Tribiunai of Madras regarding the rejection of<\/p>\n
the ‘c’ot1int’er’_s,ignatiire. Since the Tribunai negated the appeai, a<\/p>\n
. civil irevis—ion”p’etition was fiied before the Supreme Court in Civil<\/p>\n
 iio.3605\/2003, which is pending consideration and an<\/p>\n
‘ti-‘interim direction which was sought for, was rejected. In that<\/p>\n
5’<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
background, it cannot be said that the petitioner therein was<\/p>\n
competent to challenge the inter–state agreement as he,V.doe.’s._Vnot<\/p>\n
hold any permit as the so-called permit held by  <\/p>\n
paper, since it is not counter signed t_>_y…th_e tra_–n’siportiatithoiriityof<\/p>\n
Tamil Nadu. The law as laid down bythe  <\/p>\n
permit which is not counter signedwoulhd he an V-,in”v.al’i’d~perm.it{V V<\/p>\n
Hence, the petitioner lack the l(2..:zz.;:-…\u00a7_’tr1i?i.ii’;’_ to qtiestioii the inter-
\nstate agreement, which hasVb_e’eni~con’clI_ided=..in accordance with
\nthe provisions  MY Act.’ Insoifar.iiiVfi\u00a7ie allegation against<\/p>\n
the second respon’d_ent”‘is\u00bb cio-rijcerneti, it is pointed out that he was<\/p>\n
merely ii..dis-::iiarg’iiagr-._’his”‘~.offic’ial functions and though his<\/p>\n
participation did.’ not _vit.i.atey the proceedings.<\/p>\n
._f\u00b0\u00a5lQ.__ii’Responde~nt___no.l8 has filed statement of objections to<\/p>\n
contendVthatf~tiiid.er the inteI’–state agreement, the States of<\/p>\n
Karnataka and \u00b0\u00a7”amil Nadahave determined the rounds and trips<\/p>\n
 -‘\u00ab.__”-for StageV__Ca1’riage Permits on the interstate rounds lying in the<\/p>\n
 :i’Stat.es.i.~’of Karnataka and Tarnii Nadu and the provisions namely,<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 88(5) and 88(6) of the MV Act, which provide t’_o_r such<\/p>\n
an agreement being entered into does not invo}\\ie.,yi”t.he<\/p>\n
adjudication of the rights of the parties. The petitiionersi  <\/p>\n
hold any valid permit and therefore, ,:::r’e” not ,_e1–1titl,edivito._=f;uestio’n<\/p>\n
the said agreement. It is for the ijeciproicatirsg States; to”decide”the’–..<\/p>\n
number 01\u00b0 permits, rounds and  the  no
\nright to demand that his   or included
\nas a matter of right. He,nc:,e:”? misconceived.\n<\/p>\n
Significantly, .      made a party to the\npetition  on that ground\nalone as being  of necessary parties.\n\n<\/pre>\n
11. Respovndentiiino’;9,iii’has filed Statement of objections to<\/p>\n
 ‘conte~ni:l that the sia’i’d.re_s_prmdent holds a stage carriage permit for<\/p>\n
i\ufb02the.irtteretatei’route between Bangalore and Villupurarn which has<\/p>\n
beeappreneweidsifqsf to 11.8.2011. Upon the grant of the permit, an<\/p>\n
 ‘applicat1′”o_n\u00b0:.was filed for grant of counter signature before the<\/p>\n
  Ti’*\ufb01i’;iitAat6:_ii’:if;’ansport Authority, Tamil Nadu, which by its order dated<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
the petitioner. The High Court of Madras granted an order of stay.<\/p>\n
On a further representation, the ninth respondent’s rour.e’e.yvas<\/p>\n
included as saved permit under Act 41 of 1992 <\/p>\n
Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the a11egati_o11s_i_n theipetii-ii_eni”=to,sta.te”‘<\/p>\n
that there has been any discriniinationin  Oftiii3.respij’i1Ciidn:t<\/p>\n
is not a correct statement. in anapeiirent, the__ petVit1one.r”cai111iot be” i<\/p>\n
caiied an aggrieved person a.s'””the– Va-llegations-A agaiiist the<\/p>\n
authorities are vague and doc.inot’-vi\/arrai1t’– fconsviderettion by this<\/p>\n
court. The gr~o’Li’:~1d;<;~ aiso  'tintefna.b_ieViVfiand do not merit<\/p>\n
consideration' _as.:jti1~ere"'–is 4'i1i5V'i.ma11iifetgt'error on record or the<\/p>\n
exercise of powerd'as"-b'e'ing;"arbitrary. The several authorities cited<\/p>\n
to substa11tiate_'ti:at the petition does not warrant consideration as<\/p>\n
'"~._no speicific' rnateriai\u00abiS__..pieaded by the petitioner to demonstrate<\/p>\n
i'–v.tphatthe_ were biased against the petitioner or that any<\/p>\n
speciali interest the respondents has been satisfied.<\/p>\n
i2.it.The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to contend that<\/p>\n
  "insvo_fair}as the contention that the petitioner has no locus srandi is<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
28<\/span><\/p>\n
misconceived. Since it is not material whether they possessed a<\/p>\n
permit while testing the validity of challenge to an-\u00ab_iiite’r~_st–:1Ate<\/p>\n
agreement. As it is evident from Section 88(5) of    <\/p>\n
View of the words “permits which are”proposed to. granted or<\/p>\n
counte1′–signed” is significant, thereby meaniiig [h3i[_”l[Aiil”i\u20ac\u20acdi <\/p>\n
an existing permit. This apart. is’i\u00abnc”e. the pet_i_tioncr’sjpetition is<\/p>\n
admittedly pending befo1*e’L’the  petitioner
\nhas challenged the   the inter–state
\nagreement, it  has no interest
\nwhich     that petitioner being
\nentitled {to  ‘court, the petitioner had filed<\/p>\n
objections iiopithe idraft”int’er–state agreement and was also<\/p>\n
~’V.p_represe.nted by c”o’u\u00abns_e_l.\u00bbin the proceedings. Insofar as the<\/p>\n
V’-,pa.n:iicipya’ti.o’n second respondent in the proceedings is<\/p>\n
concerned,_ .iteAii_s7:not necessary for the petitioner to prove main<\/p>\n
  \ufb02des. ‘l’he’mere fact that he was holding the post of Chairman of a<\/p>\n
iijifgdisentitled him to participate in the proceedings.<\/p>\n
 Respondent 3 to l8 being direct beneficiaries of such illegal<\/p>\n
\u00e9<\/p>\n
29<\/span><\/p>\n
proceedings, are not in 21 position to raise objections to the writ<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n
E3. in considering the above facts and circurn\u00abst.zinr:es;’.;’the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner has placed. th’t:._ <\/p>\n
foliowing judgments, insofar as his c=onte.ntion;–.tI*iat ‘procee_diwz1:g$<\/p>\n
conducted by the Principai Secretary;xTi”an$po\ufb01’..AjDeVpa1itmentt><\/p>\n
cannot be construed as the proceediihgswcondocted  the State<\/p>\n
Government-\n<\/p>\n
1. ManqkLa1 i,=\u00a7'[%1>r.13\u00a7\u00a7;;9m hem; 11957 SCR 575]\n<\/p>\n
2. Gwapezzzzoz1vag\u00e9s;;:ast\u00a2=.1e;za.@171″0111m v.Ar1dl\/zra Pradesh Stare
\nRoad Trz:mp’1;r1 t;’o1\u00e9’,r;15;ra1{;’:1n and Arzother, AIR 1959 SC 308,<\/p>\n
 3. G111f(1;1j9c1.Ili Naige.$iviar(1:Rc1(1 and Orlzers v. The Stare of\/mdhra
\nA  it Ag\u00e9}%z1;1e;s}11akzciiggrlzm, AIR 1959 SC 1376,
\n  K; .V[.i<'V"r–*.,r_1i.1']1';*4.Vr.iizVi'\u00ab=.}i,1.~ Union Qflndia [AIR 1970 SC 150],<\/p>\n
5. ii  Kff.i’f11?s\u00a3:iiBL{.S’ Service P91. Ltd. vs State Of Haryana & 0119
\n[AIR..1ii9{\u00a75VSC 1551],<\/p>\n
it  A’ B-;.’.’Ra}ic1172aIh11lla Khan And 0125′. vs Stare Of Karnaraka And<\/p>\n
“‘._iOrsiii[AlR 1989 Kar. 157]<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
8 M <\/p>\n
30<\/span><\/p>\n
7. KR.Bhaskaranancla v. Stare of Karnataka [AIR 1998 Kar
\n182],<\/p>\n
8. Mar Modern Cooperative Transport Society Limlfcd v.
\nFinancial CoImn.is.s’i()m3r’ and Secretczry to G({y’.e_};l:1lf%zl5:f;\u00a3.ll”Qf<\/p>\n
Haryana and Another [AIR 2002(6) SCC 269]  <\/p>\n
9. Delhi Fin. Corpn. And Am-. V. RajngArzazzd”Ana;<jn{;<.2094" <\/p>\n
UUSCC625]<\/p>\n
I0. M.P.Special Police E.S'lC1bll.S'Vli'r.":3'_(','I'il v.KS'ltIfe iancl lE;:rllier.\u00a7"",<\/p>\n
[(2004) 8 SCC 788].\n<\/p>\n
The Counsek for :’t*he  rellili\u00e9dl upon the
\nfoliowing judgments to cont\u00e9lljdl   not entitied for<\/p>\n
preferenvti\ufb01llllllffealjjjenl\ufb01h  \ufb01nder Chapter-V of the MV
\nAct:~ 8 V’ 8   8  8<\/p>\n
1. SL4peirinIen’denf ‘:’?\u00e9mer1zbrar1c*er, State Of West Bengal
\nl_\/:.\u00a7fg.CQ_}*povz’azi(jn’Qf__Calc’utIa [AIR 1967 SC 997 1,
\n.;’Si2_gr_v8i:1gl1:’&__Or.v Vs. Union Oflndia And Others’ [1984 (1)<\/p>\n
 ‘V 3. lfan  v. Siare Transport Appellate Tribunal and Others\n<\/p>\n
8.   – ;1__ 987*sypp.sCC 67] 1.\n<\/p>\n
\u00a7<\/p>\n
Further that the proceedings are vitiated, as at the relevant<\/p>\n
point of time, he was also holding the post of Chairman_io\u00bbf. the<\/p>\n
ST{} and further to contend that no special considerjat’i’onj_~<\/p>\n
shown to the STU as the State Undertaltipng is  = <\/p>\n
preferential treatment in proceeding u’rider;”Chapter-‘Vjiiofi”tlie._N2’l.”\\Z<\/p>\n
Act and further that the pe1’mitsiiof~~.somei”private -‘being\u00bbi’<\/p>\n
included in the agreement, is arbitrrars\/’;v-_
\nSince the petitioner  admittedly no<\/p>\n
longer holds interi\u00abis’}\u00a721ite pe_r1ni_t,”an’y’ proceediings pending before<\/p>\n
the apex:Courtitin.thisiiregard…ls wholly’ irrelevant, as the petitioner
\nis admittedly not  in seeking to question the inter-<\/p>\n
state agreenienta Thei-e-fore, the primary objection of the<\/p>\n
 respondents thatthe petitioners have no locus Stcmdi to question<\/p>\n
theinter–st2itci,l_agreeh1ent would have to be accepted.<\/p>\n
i’Tho”ugh’iithe counsel for the petitioners took great pains in<\/p>\n
{seeking to urge the several grounds in the writ petition and<\/p>\n
 ____””extiensive1y referred to the case–law, the petitions would fail on the<\/p>\n
Z5<\/p>\n
preliminary objection that the petitioner does not admittedly hold<\/p>\n
inter-state permits. Though the petitioners in WP 793\/2()Q’8.._h~aVve<\/p>\n
asserted that they are permit hoiders, the vehement–A”‘deni:ziI
\nstatement by the respondents, is not met~–by the _t)etiiti4onier.sj.and
\ntherefore, it would have to be heid thin tile-eipetiti’o.ne~:s \u00abhzi <\/p>\n
made out any case for interference’by”‘this court,  doesiiit merit V<\/p>\n
consideration in addressin the se’v’er3’is-f_:41’oV\ufb011ads urged.
\nAccordingly, the writ pe~titions zire.–d.is’1’nIi_’ssed.<\/p>\n
\n\n   sa\/-3'\n\n,       i Iudq\u00e9   \n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court K Mir Akram vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2010 Author: Anand Byrareddy 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\u20acMV”)- 7 WRIT PETITION I\\?O’.4–..EI86 OF 2008 I1vI’*~.()-.II,I IN WRIT […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-53851","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK Mir Akram vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K Mir Akram vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-09-27T08:14:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K Mir Akram vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-27T08:14:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3825,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010\",\"name\":\"K Mir Akram vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-27T08:14:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K Mir Akram vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K Mir Akram vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K Mir Akram vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-09-27T08:14:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K Mir Akram vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-27T08:14:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010"},"wordCount":3825,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010","name":"K Mir Akram vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-27T08:14:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mir-akram-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-6-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K Mir Akram vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53851","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=53851"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53851\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53851"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53851"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53851"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}