Karnataka High Court
Sri Syed Sigbathulla vs The District Commissioner And Chairman on 28 February, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8421
WP No. 5202 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5202 OF 2024 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SYED SIGBATHULLA
S/O SYED KHALEEL
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
PROP. S K M S
G R MILL ROAD, N R PURA
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT 577 101
2. SRI SYED SHABEER
S/O SYED KHALEEL
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
PROP. S K M S
G R MILL ROAD, N R PURA
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT 577 101
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PUTHIGE R RAMESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. A S PARASARA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by B
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER AND
CHAIRMAN
REGIONAL TRASNPORT AUTHORITY
CHICKMAGALURU REGION
B M ROAD, CHICKMAGALURU 577 101
REPRSENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
2. THE SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
CHICKMAGALUR REGION
B M ROAD, CHICKMAGALURU 577 101
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8421
WP No. 5202 of 2024
3. SRI MOHAMMED ZABIBULLA
S/O MOHAMMED SALEEM
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
PROP. MERCHANT TRANSPORTS
KOBBARIPET, HOSADURGA
CHITRADURGA 577 501
4. MR ANEES UR REHMAN
S/O ATIUR REHMAN
BUS OPERAETOR
AJJAMPURA, TARIKERE
CHIKKAMAGALUR 577 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C MOHAMMED SUBHANULLA SHARISS , ADVOCATE
FOR C/R3 AND R4;
SRI. B RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING ORDER
PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON I.A.I IN R.P.NOS.2 AND 3/2024
DATED 08.02.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-Y AND Z AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Respondents No.3 and 4 have filed revision petitions
before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal under
Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short "Act,
1988") interalia challenging the temporary permit granted to
the petitioners under Section 81(c) of the Act, 1988 for the
routes Sringere to Birur and Back.
2. The issue as to whether the respondents No.3 and 4
have got locus standi to maintain the petitions was examined
by the Appellate Tribunal, and the Appellate Tribunal by the
impugned order held that the respondents No.3 and 4 have
NC: 2024:KHC:8421
locus standi to challenge the temporary permit granted in
favour of the petitioners. Taking exception of the same, this
petition is filed.
3. Sri Puthige R. Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel
representing the petitioners' counsel contended that the
respondents No.3 and 4, who are the rival operators, have no
locus standi to maintain the petitions, and in support, he places
reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of MITHILESH GARG -VS- UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS,
reported in AIR 1992 SC 443. He further contended that the
respondents No.3 and 4 are not aggrieved persons, since only a
portion of the route assigned to the petitioners is common.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
No.3 and 4 submits that the temporary permit issued for the
routes stated above in favour of the petitioners is common for
distance of nearly 40 Kilometers with the routes assigned to the
respondents No.3 and 4, and in terms of the notification dated
7.3.2019, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of temporary
permit, since the application for renewal was not pending, and
the permit granted in favour of TCS Koppa has become in-
operative for non-payment of arrears of road tax. Therefore,
the respondents No.3 and 4 come under the ambit of the
definition of the aggrieved person to maintain revision petitions
under section 90 of the Act 1988. In support, he places reliance
on the decisions of the Calcutta High Court, in the case of
PRABHAT PAN AND ORS. -Vs- STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND
ORS. reported in AIR 2015 CULCUTTA 112, and also the
NC: 2024:KHC:8421
Division Bench of this Court in the case of SADASHIVA REDDY -
Vs- LAL SHERIFF, reported in ILR 1999 KAR 666.
5. Considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties.
6. The TCS was the grantee of pucca permit on the
routes Sringere to Birur and Birur to Kigga, and the permit was
suspended due to non-payment of arrears of road tax. Having
regard to the fact that the public at large were put to
inconvenience since the permit of the TCS was suspended, a
resolution was passed to grant permit to any other particular
operator. The petitioner asserts that an application was filed
for grant of temporary permit on 6.1.2024 and the application
was accepted granting temporary permit.
7. The only point that arises for consideration is
whether the respondents No.3 and 4, who are granted with
permit, have locus standi to challenge the temporary permit
granted in favour of the petitioners.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
MITHILESH GARG supra, at para 7 held as follows:
"7..... They are plying their vehicles on the routes
assigned to them under the permits. They are in the full
enjoyment of their fundamental right guaranteed to them
under Article 19(1)(g). of the Constitution of India. There
is no threat of any kind whatsoever from any authority to
the enjoyment of their right to carry on the occupation of
transport operators. There is no complaint of infringement
of any of their statutory rights. Their only effort is to stop
NC: 2024:KHC:8421
the new operators from coming in the field as
competitors. We see no justification in the petitioners'
stand. More operators mean healthy- competition and
efficient transport system. Over-crowded buses,
passengers standing in the aisle, clinging to the bus-doors
and even sitting on the roof-tops are some of the
common sights in this country. More often one finds a bus
which has noisy engine, old upholstery, uncomfortable
seats and continuous emission of black-smoke from the
exhaust pipe. It is, therefore, necessary that there should
be plenty of operators on every route to provide ample
choice to the commuter- public to board the vehicle of
their choice and patronize the operator who is providing
the best service."
9. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of
SADASHIVA REDDY (supra) with reference to the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MITHILESH GARG has
held that a reading of Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
makes it clear that any order of the Regional Transport
Authority or the State Transport Authority, whether it be grant
of a permit or assignment of timings, can be called in question
by an aggrieved operator, and the order can be demonstrated
to be either illegal or improper. It follows that a rival operator
on making allegations which prima facie demonstrates a
grievance which calls for examination, is entitled to have his
revision examined on merits in accordance with law, and he
cannot be thrown out at the threshold on the ground that he
has no grievance.
10. The Full Bench of Calcutta High Court, in the case of
PRABHAT PAN AND ORS (supra) has held that the dictum in
Mithilesh Garg, has thus, to be confined to a situation where an
NC: 2024:KHC:8421
existing operator is seen to challenge the entry of a rival in his
theatre of operation on the ground of the existing operator's
business or commercial interests being prejudiced. The
Judgment cannot be read to imply that an existing operator has
no right to complain of an illegal or irregular act of the
transport authorities in allowing a new entrant to operate in the
same or like field. There is no doubt that it is the commercial
interest of an existing operator that may impel him to challenge
the grant of a permit to a rival; but if the challenge is based on
the perceived irregular or illegal acts and conduct of the
transport authorities, the challenge cannot be repelled only on
the ground of business rivalry.
11. In the instant case, the specific allegation is that,
the temporary permit granted in favour of the petitioners is
common to an extent of nearly 35 Kilometers on the routes
assigned to the respondents No.3 and 4, and whether the
temporary permit granted in favour of the petitioners is
common to the said extent is a matter, which requires to be
adjudicated by the Revisional Court under Section 90 of the
Act.
12. The Revisional Court has rightly passed the
impugned order holding that the Revision petitions filed by the
respondents No.3 and 4 are maintainable. I do not find any
illegality in the impugned order passed by the Appellate
Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:8421
13. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
14. The Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal to
conclude the proceedings in R.P.Nos.2 and 3/2024 within 7
days from the next date of hearing. i.e. on 29.02.2024.
15. The interim order granted on 20.02.2024 which is in
subsistence as of today is continued for a period of 7 days from
29.2.2024.
16. It is made clear in the event, the proceedings are
adjourned at the instance of the petitioner, the interim order
granted earlier stands automatically vacated.
17. All contentions on merits are kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE
