2003 (7) TMI 724 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved
1. Whether it is permissible to grant variation of the conditions of a stage carriage permit held by a saved operator under the Kolar Pocket Scheme/Bellary Pocket Scheme, by increasing the number of trips or number of vehicles?

Detailed Analysis

Background and Referral
A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, while considering these appeals, noted a conflict between its own decisions and referred the matter to a Full Bench to resolve the question of whether it is permissible to grant variation of the conditions of a stage carriage permit under the Kolar Pocket Scheme/Bellary Pocket Scheme by increasing the number of trips or vehicles. The matter was referred to the Full Bench as per the order dated 2-7-2003.

Facts of the Case
One petitioner, a saved operator under the Kolar Pocket Scheme, sought a variation of the permit to include one more round trip and an additional vehicle. This variation was granted by the State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh, subject to counter-signature by the Karnataka State Transport Authority (KSTA). The permit was renewed multiple times, and the counter-signature was endorsed. Respondents challenged this grant, and the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal framed two questions regarding the authority to grant such variations. The Tribunal's decision was partially in favor of the petitioner and partially in favor of the respondents, leading to further writ petitions and appeals.

Legal Precedents and Arguments
The Court examined several precedents:
- A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court had previously held that increasing the number of trips does not amount to granting a new permit.
- The Supreme Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. State Transport Appellate Authority held that variation of permit conditions does not violate the scheme.
- The Supreme Court in Gajraj Singh's case clarified that saved operators must apply under the 1988 Act, not the 1939 Act.
- The Supreme Court in R. Venkatesham Chetty's case decided that granting variation of the permit by allowing additional trips on the inter-State route is not permissible.

Court's Observations
The Court noted that the Kolar and Bellary Pocket Schemes were approved with saving clauses, allowing certain operations to continue. However, the schemes were modified to include prohibitive clauses, limiting operations to those specified in the scheme.

The Court also considered the arguments that the variation of permits by including additional trips or vehicles would not violate the schemes. However, it was argued that the latest Supreme Court decision in R. Venkatesham Chetty's case, which prohibits such variations, should prevail.

Conclusion
The Full Bench concluded that it is not permissible to grant variation of the conditions of a stage carriage permit held by a saved operator under the Kolar Pocket Scheme or Bellary Pocket Scheme by increasing the number of trips or vehicles unless a reciprocal agreement between the States so permits. This conclusion aligns with the Supreme Court's decision in R. Venkatesham Chetty's case, which resolves the controversy.

The writ appeals and petitions were directed to be posted before an appropriate Bench for disposal on merits.