Judgment:
(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 3.11.12 made in RP no.705/11, RP no.706/11, Appeal No.1147/11 and Appeal No.1148/11 Annx-V dismissing the RP and appeals and to quash the following orders of R1 and etc.)
(Oral):
Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of countersignatures by the Karnataka State Transport Authority to the two permits granted to him in the State of Kerala is the question that arises for determination in these writ petitions.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 03.11.2012 (Annexure-V) passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore.
3. Facts in brief: The petitioner was granted Stage Carriage Permits bearing No.43/STA/86 and No.44/STA/86 for the two routes namely Thalangara to Mangalore and Parasinakadavu to Mangalore respectively. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid permits relating to the two routes were operative till 04.08.2009 and 15.10.2009 respectively. The petitioner applied for renewal of the said permits before the Kerala State Transport Authority. The Kerala State Transport Authority renewed both the permits for a period of five years; from 05.08.2009 to 04.08.2014 in respect of permit No.43 and from 16.10.2009 to 15.10.2014 in respect of permit No.44. When the said permits were submitted to the Karnataka State Transport Authority for countersignatures, the Karnataka State Transport Authority refused to countersign the same as per the two separate orders dated 11.11.2011 produced as Annexures-R and S. Being aggrieved, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos.1147 and 1148/2011. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 03.11.2012 (Annexure-V) dismissed the said appeals and upheld the rejection on the ground that the aforesaid inter-state routes are not specified in any of the reciprocal agreements between Karnataka and Kerala or in any of the notifications dated 21.05.1963, 29.06.1976 and 26.06.1976 which are produced as Annexures - B, K2 and K3 respectively. Consequently, it also dismissed the petitioner's Revision Petitions in R.P.Nos.705 and 706 of 2011 by holding that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of single point tax in the absence of renewal of the permits.
4. Sri S.P.Shankar, learned Senior Counsel and Sri C.V.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of the writ petitions, placed reliance on the notification dated 21.05.1963 (Annexure-B) issued by the Government of Kerala in exercise of the power conferred on it under Section 43(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and further referred to sub section (4) of Section 81 and Section 217A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and submitted that the permits in question should have been countersigned by the Karnataka State Transport Authority. They also submitted that the renewal of a permit cannot be rejected on any of the grounds other than the one that are enumerated in Section 81(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
5. In my opinion, the aforesaid provisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant in the context of grant of countersignature to an inter-state route permit. The relevant legal provision to be looked into is Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which relates to validation of permits including the one relating to inter-state routes.
6. Unless there is an authorised inter-state route, it is not permissible to any State Transport Authority to countersign an inter-state route permit. This is the law laid down by a three judge bench of the Supreme Court in A.Venkatakrishnan v. State Transport Authority [(2004)11 SCC 207]. It was held therein that an inter-state route permit can be granted only if there is a reciprocal agreement between the States concerned relating to the inter-state route. It is useful to quote paras 1, 2 and 8 to 13 of the said judgment:
" 1. The petitioner herein applied before the State Transport Authority, Pondicherry, for grant of permit on the proposed route known as Pandakkal to Palakkad (hereinafter referred to as the proposed inter-State route). A part of the said route lies in the State of Kerala and the other part lies in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The State Transport Authority, Pondicherry by an order dated 17-11-2000, granted inter-State permit, as applied for by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter applied to the State Transport Authority, Kerala, for grant of countersignature. The State Transport Authority, Kerala relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar v. Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner and rejected the application for grant of countersignature of permit on the aforesaid inter-State route. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
2. When this matter came up before a Bench of this Court, the Court was of the view that this case requires to be decided by a Bench of three learned Judges and it is in this way the matter has come up before us.
.........................
8. Chapter V of the Act lays down a complete code. Three categories of permits are envisaged therein namely, inter-region, intra-State and inter-State. Criteria and procedures for grant of permits in each of the three categories are different. The Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority can grant permit to an owner of the stage carriage to ply his vehicle within the territorial jurisdiction of a region or the State, as the case may be. Sub-section (2) of Section 88 of the Act, however, provides for a non obstante clause in terms whereof a permit granted or countersigned by a State Transport Authority shall be valid in the whole State or in such regions within the State as may be specified in the permit. A State, therefore, would not have any jurisdiction to consider any application for grant of inter-State permit which would require the countersignature of the other State.
9. The proviso appended to sub-section (4) of Section 88 of the Act envisages that where a permit is required to be countersigned by the other State, the procedure laid down under Section 80 of the Act would not be necessary to be followed. Such a provision has obviously been made having regard to the fact that in a case of grant of inter-State permit, the provisions contained in sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 88 of the Act are required to be followed.
10. Sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 88 of the Act provide for the machinery as regards entering into an agreement between the States, inter alia, to fix the number of permits, which is proposed to be granted or countersigned in respect of each route or area in respect whereof publication of the proposal is required to be made in the Official Gazette by each of the State Governments concerned in any one or more of the newspapers. Even after an agreement is entered into between the States. the same is required to be published in the Official Gazette in any one or more of the newspapers in the regional language circulating in the area or route covered by the agreement. The State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority concerned are obligated to give effect to such agreement.
11. For the aforementioned purpose, the competent authorities of the States concerned are required to consider and determine the routes and the number thereof to be opened as inter-State routes. For the said purpose, other conditions required for smooth running of the vehicles are also to be laid down.
12. Furthermore, the definition of "route", as contained in Section 2(38) of the Act means a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another. Therefore, before an inter-State route in respect whereof a permit is sought to be granted is determined, the question of filing any application therefore by a person before the State Transport Authority of his State would not arise unless an agreement in relation thereto has been entered into by the States concerned and the routes as also the number of trips are fixed thereunder. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the State Transport Authority of one State would have no jurisdiction to entertain an application for grant of an inter-State route, particularly when Section 80 of the Act will have no application in relation thereof unless an agreement is entered into by the State concerned.
13. A purposive and meaningful construction, it is trite, must be given to a statute, so that it is made workable. A statute should not be construed in such a manner, which would create a vacuum. In the absence of any route being fixed in terms of an agreement, in the event it be held that an application for grant of permit for inter-State route can be entertained, the same would lead to a futile exercise. A mutual approval of the States concerned, in the matter, therefore, must be held to be mandatory. In other words, the proviso, appended to sub-section (4) of Section 88 of the Act, must be read conjointly with sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 88 thereof and. consequently, it must be held that by necessary implication agreements are contemplated for creation of inter-State routes."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Having noticed the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Venkatakrishnan's case referred to above, let me now refer to the reasoning of the Appellate Tribunal at para 21 of its judgment:
"21. Therefore, it has to be held that the principal agreement entered into between the states of Karnataka and Kerala is of the year 1976, wherein the two routes in question do not find a place. The said agreement covers the inter-state routes and the existing routes to be operated with number trips and vehicles which the two states mutual agreed for operation. It was argued by the learned counsel for appellant that the right accrued under the agreement of 1963 unilaterally cannot be taken away by one state and the appellant is operating on the inter-state route after obtaining renewal from time to time and now the STA, Karnataka cannot deprive the said right of the appellant. Merely, on the ground Kerala STA granted renewal, the counter signing authority is not prevented from examining the matter on the basis of the law in force at the time of renewal. Section 88 (5) and 88 (6) of the MV Act 1988 is clear on the point that existence of the route and reciprocal agreement between the two states with regard to the inter-state route is a pre requisite condition for grant or counter signature. In the agreement of 1963 no routes are mentioned. Only in the agreement of 1976 the existing inter-state route operated by the various operators with number of trips is mentioned. May be true permit was granted and renewed from time to time on the basis of agreement of 1963. But agreement of 1976 specifically mentioned the routes and the two routes in question do no figure in the said agreement. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the arguments of the learned counsel that the right accrued to the appellant under 1963 agreement cannot be unless it is superseded".
(Underlining supplied)
8. As could be seen from the above observations, there is no inter-state agreement relating to the routes in question. The notification dated 26.06.1976 issued by the Government of Kerala at Annexure-K3 states that it would supersede all the relevant previous notifications. Hence, question of the notification dated 21.05.1963 at Annexure-B being saved by Section 217 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as contended by petitioner's counsel, does not arise. On the facts of the case, in my opinion, refusal to countersign the two permits in question by the Karnataka State Transport Authority cannot be said to be illegal.
9. In my opinion, a State Transport Authority can countersign an inter-state route permit only for an authorised route specified in an inter-state agreement. In the present case, the inter-state routes, for which the countersignatures were sought for, do not figure in any of the reciprocal agreements between the two states. Hence, Karnataka State Transport Authority's refusal to countersign the two permits cannot be faulted with. I find no legal infirmity in the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal at Annexure-V as it is in conformity with the law laid down by a three judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Venkatakrishnan's case referred to above. The writ petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed.
Petitions dismissed.