SRI B R JAYANTH vs THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

W.P.Nos.53113 – 53116 OF 2015 (MV)

BETWEEN :

SRI B.R.JAYANTH S/O RACHAPPA, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O BESUR VILLAGE, HULIDEVARABARA, SAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

SRI H.N.KRISHNAMURTHY S/O NARASANAYAKA, AGED 38 YEARS, R/O HEJJOLU, NELLIBEEDU POST, SAGARA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201.

... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI C.V.KUMAR, ADV.)

AND:

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY SHIMOGA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL OFFICE, SHIMOGA-577201.

SREE GAJANANA MOTOR TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED SAGAR, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201, REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.

SRI T.N.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, BUS OPERATOR, SAGAR,

- 2 - SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201.

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI S.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI A.S.PARASARA KUMAR, ADV. FOR C/R-2; SRI P.R.RAMESH, ADV. FOR R-3; SRI B.PHALAKSHAIAH, ADV. FOR R-4.)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE DATED 03.01.2015 MADE IN REVISION PETITION Nos.720/2013, 721/2013, 722/2013 & 723/2013 (ANNX-J).

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRL.HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

These petitions are directed against the common order of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (‘Tribunal’ for short) dated 3.11.2015 in R.P.Nos.720/2013, 721/2013, 722/2013 and 723/2013, Annexure-J to the writ petitions.

The petitioners applied for grant of stage carriage permits. The 1st petitioner applied for the grant of permit on route, Kollur to Sagar and back and 2nd

- 3 - petitioner applied for the route Sagar to Sigandoor. The Regional Transport Authority (‘RTA’ for short) got the route survey conducted on multiple times. The RTA, respondent No.1 granted permits to the petitioners against which respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed revision petitions. The Tribunal by its common order allowed the Revision Petitions, setting aside the permits granted by the RTA. Hence these petitions.

Learned counsel Sri.C.V.Kumar, appearing for the petitioners would contend that the route in question of the 1st petitioner from Kolluru to Sagar and back traverses through the notified route only from Shivappa Nayaka Circle to Sagara Bus stand. The petitioners had proposed the alternative routes from Shivappa Nayaka Circle to Sagara private Bus stand. Even joint route survey report supports the case of the petitioners as regards the alternative route from Shivappa Nayaka Circle to Sagara private Bus stand, on

- 4 - traversing through this alternative route, the petitioner is not overlapping on the notified route. It is possible to enter Sagar Bus stand from the non-notified route by taking immediate right turn on the main road, which can be construed as an intersection. There were two options proposed to avoid the overlapping on the notified route as per the joint route survey report. Considering the same, the respondent-Authority granted the fresh permits, but the same are set-aside by the Tribunal in its entirety.

It is contended that indisputably the route from Kolluru to Shivappa Nayaka Circle being a non- notified route, the Tribunal ought to have confirmed the grant of permit to the said route. Similarly, as regards the 2nd petitioner, from Sigandhoor to Shivappa Nayaka Circle is a non-notified route. It is only from Shivappa Nayaka Circle to Sagara private Bus stand, it is a notified route. The Tribunal ought to have confirmed

- 5 - the permit on the non-notified route from Sigandhoor to Shivappa Nayaka Circle; alternatively, would have remanded the matters to the Authorities to examine the probabilities of reaching the Sagara Bus stand without overlapping on the notified route.

Learned counsel Sri.A.S.Parasara Kumar, appearing for respondent No.2 had filed statement of objections and reiterating the contents of the same, submitted that the alternative route suggested and considered by the Authorities as per the joint route survey report, Shivappa Nayaka Circle to Sagara Bus stand, enroute Agrahara, R.M.C., Bhavikatte Circle, Kathale Bazar, Chennamma Circle, Income Tax Office, Venkatarama Temple, Court Road, is not a motorable road. The said route being narrow and a residential area, no buses can be permitted to operate on the said route. Shivappa Nayaka Circle to Sagara Bus stand being a notified route, the Authorities were not justified

- 6 - in granting fresh permits to the petitioners and accordingly, the same has been considered by the Tribunal in a right perspective while allowing the Revision Petitions filed by the 2nd respondent.

Having heard the rival submissions of the parties, it is limpid that the route from Shivappa Nayaka Circle to Sagara Bus stand is the notified route. Apparently, the route in question claimed by the petitioners to certain extent, i.e., Shivappa Nayaka Circle to Sagara Bus stand comes within the notified route. Availability of the alternative route to avoid the overlapping on the notified route is considered by the Authorities, but the same is objected to by the respondent No.2 for various reasons. Considering the same, the Tribunal set-aside the permit granted to the petitioners. Admittedly, the route from Kolluru to Shivappa Nayaka Circle, as well as Sigandoor to Shivappa Nayaka Circle is not a notified route. In the

- 7 - circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have confirmed the said routes to the petitioners instead of setting aside the permits granted in its entirety. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the Authorities to consider the issue of overlapping from Shivappa Nayaka Circle to Sagara Bus stand on the alternate notified route. The route from Kolluru to Shivappa Nayaka Circle as far as 1st petitioner and Sigandoor to Shivappa Nayaka Circle as regards the 2nd petitioner shall be confirmed and timings shall be assigned by the Authorities. This exercise shall be done by the Authorities as expeditiously as possible.

It is made clear that the petitioners shall not operate the services in the notified route i.e Shivappa Nayaka Circle to Sagara Bus stand and shall operate the services in the non-notified route Kolluru to

- 8 - Shivappa Nayaka Circle (petitioner No.1) and Sigandhoor to Shivappa Nayaka Circle (petitioner No.2).

The writ petitions stand disposed of in the terms of the above.

Sd/- JUDGE

ln.

SRI B R JAYANTH vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY