K.L. Ravikumar Vs. State of Karnataka and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- constitution of india -- article 226; [a.s. bopanna, j] jurisdiction under held, high court will have jurisdiction regarding the statutory contracts and not a non statutory contracts. proper remedy is to work out through the competent civil court. order1. by this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3-3-1997, whereby the secretary, regional transport authority, mandya has refused to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of special permit under section 88(8) of the motor vehicles act on the ground that he has not received any instruction from the government as also the rules framed thereunder. the order reads as under: 'with reference to the above subject, the applicant is informed that his application for consideration ,of the issue of special permit under section 88(8) of the motor vehicles act, 1988, for vehicle no. ka-11-1991 stage carriage cannot be considered, since he has not received instructions from the government and also the rules framed thereunder. under these circumstances your application cannot be considered'.2. this order per se appears to be nothing but refusal to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the authority on the misconception of facts. in vijaya n. rai v state of karnataka and others, this court had the occasion to consider the provisions of law in similar circumstances. this court after having referred to provisions of section 88(8) and after having referred to section 20 of the karnataka contract carriages acquisition act, 1976 as well as section 24 thereof, this exemption clause along with clause (iv) added to section 24 of act 21 of 1976, as inserted by karnataka amendment order in 1976, observed as under: 3. 'section 88 of the motor vehicles act, 1988, provides for validation of permits for use outside the region in which it is granted. sub-section (8) of section 88 may be quoted herewith: 'section 88(8).--notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), but subject to any rules that may be made under this act by the central government, the regional transport authority of any one region or, as the case may be, the state transport authority, may, for the convenience of the public, grant a special permit to any public service vehicle including any vehicle covered by a permit issued under section 72 (including a reserve stage car-riage) or under section 74 or under sub-section (9) of this section for carrying a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract, express or implied, for the use of the vehicle as a whole without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract, and in every case where such special permit is granted, the regional transport authority shall assign to the vehicle, for display thereon, a special distinguishing mark in the form and manner specified by the central government and such special permit shall be valid in any other region or state without the counter-signature of the regional transport authority of the other region or of the state transport authority of the other state, as the case may be'.a reading of this section per se reveals that under this section, notwithstanding what is contained in sub-section (1) of section 88, the regional transport authority of the region as well as the state transport authority have been empowered, subject to any rules made under the act, to grant special permit to any public service vehicle including the vehicles covered by a permit issued under section 72 or under section 74 or under section 88(9) of the act. the conditions are specified subject to which special permit has to be granted and the period for which it shall be valid and it provides that it shall be valid in other states without being counter-signed. a reading of the section reveal, that no higher authority is required to issue directions to the regional transport authority, regional transport officer or state transport authority to grant special permits. sub-section 88(8) empowers the state transport authority or the regional transport authority, as the case may be, subject to what is provided under sub-section (8), for the convenience of the public, issue special carriage permit. the question of public convenience may also include the convenience or interest of the students or public involved in educational activities as well as to broaden the vision of the students from the narrow limits of townships of regionalism to that of higher regions namely students of villages may have the light of towns, cities or other regions as well as other parts of the country. so far as the purpose mentioned, the convenience of the public, particularly the student community, the transport authority -- regional or state -- can grant the permit, but subject to the conditions prescribed in the act or subject to the rules made by the government. so, in my opinion, the regional transport officer has mistaken by refusing togrant special permit on the ground that it has not received any direction from the higher authorities. there was no question of higher authority issuing any directions when the act itself so provides. no doubt, karnataka act 21 of 1976, karnataka contract carriages (acquisition) act, provides for exclusive privilege of running any contract carriages in favour of the state transport corporation. a reading of section 20 of the karnataka contract carriages (acquisition) act, 1976, provides as under: section 20. corporation to have exclusive privilege of running any contract carriage.--notwithstanding anything in the motor vehicles act, with effect on and from the notified date.-- (1) all contract carriage permits granted or renewed in respect of any vehicle other than a vehicle --(i) acquired under this act, or(ii) belonging to the corporation, or (iii) referred to in section 24, shall stand cancelled; (2) the corporation shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of section 24, to the grant or renewal of contract carriage permits to the exclusion of all other persons; and (3) no officer or authority shall invite any application or entertain any such application of persons other than the corporation for the grant of permit for the running of any contract carriage'.a reading of this section shows that permit is granted with exception to vehicles mentioned in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (1). a reading of this section indicates that the exclusive privilege conferred to the corporation which will not effect adversely the carriages covered by section 24. section 24 of act 21 of 1976 is exemption clause. it provides as under: 'section 24. exemptions.--nothing contained in this act shall apply to.-- (i)..... not relevant. (ii)..... not relevant. (iii)..... not relevant'.clause (iv) which has been added and inserted by the amendment ordinance namely the karnataka contract carriages (acquisition) (amendment) ordinance, 1996, reads as under: 'clause (iv) of section 24.--any public service vehicle including any vehicle covered by permit issued under section 72 (including reserved stage carriages) or under subsection (9) of section 88 of the motor vehicles act, 1988, to which a permit under sub-section (8) of section 88 of the said act is issued'.the provisions of section 24 of the act 21 of 1976 will not apply to any public service vehicle including other vehicles referred to in respect of which a permit under section 88(8) of the motor vehicles act is or has been issued. it means it may apply to the cases where permit under section 88(8) has not been issued. 4. thus, considered in my opinion, the state transport authority and regional transport have full jurisdiction to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of special permit on merits and it could not assume that it had no jurisdiction to consider it unless directions from higher authorities are issued. the other reason on which the regional transport authority appeared to have refused to grant special permit is that taxation slab has not been received from higher authorities. taxation slab if not have been received, in my opinion, it should not have caused any hindrance in the matter of considering and disposing of the application for grant of special permit. 5. in this view of the matter, in my opinion, the secretary to regional transport authority has illegally refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has observed that it cannot consider the application. the endorsement appears to have been passed on misconception of law and its jurisdiction by the regional transport authority. the order impugned as such is quashed and it is directed that opposite party will consider the petitioner's application for special permit under section 88(8) of the act on merits and pass suitable orders if there is any question of tax slab etc., being relevant, it may take an undertaking from the petitioner in the form of affidavit and to its own satisfaction that petitioner will pay the tax etc., if any payable with reference to special permit which may be grantedby the authority in accordance with the rules and slabs prescribed and may also require the petitioner to furnish some amount as security for the tax amount. let the direction to the above effect be issued to the regional transport authority concerned.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3-3-1997, whereby the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Mandya has refused to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of special permit under Section 88(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that he has not received any instruction from the Government as also the rules framed thereunder. The order reads as under:

'With reference to the above subject, the applicant is informed that his application for consideration ,of the issue of special permit under Section 88(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for vehicle No. KA-11-1991 Stage Carriage cannot be considered, since he has not received instructions from the Government and also the rules framed thereunder. Under these circumstances your application cannot be considered'.

2. This order per se appears to be nothing but refusal to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the authority on the misconception of facts. In Vijaya N. Rai v State of Karnataka and Others, this Court had the occasion to consider the provisions of law in similar circumstances. This Court after having referred to provisions of Section 88(8) and after having referred to Section 20 of the Karnataka Contract Carriages Acquisition Act, 1976 as well as Section 24 thereof, this exemption clause along with clause (iv) added to Section 24 of Act 21 of 1976, as inserted by Karnataka Amendment Order in 1976, observed as under:

3. 'Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for validation of permits for use outside the region in which it is granted. Sub-section (8) of Section 88 may be quoted herewith:

'Section 88(8).--Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), but subject to any rules that may be made under this Act by the Central Government, the Regional Transport Authority of any one region or, as the case may be, the State Transport Authority, may, for the convenience of the public, grant a special permit to any public service vehicle including any vehicle covered by a permit issued under Section 72 (including a reserve stage car-riage) or under Section 74 or under sub-section (9) of this section for carrying a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract, express or implied, for the use of the vehicle as a whole without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract, and in every case where such special permit is granted, the Regional Transport Authority shall assign to the vehicle, for display thereon, a special distinguishing mark in the form and manner specified by the Central Government and such special permit shall be valid in any other region or State without the counter-signature of the Regional Transport Authority of the other region or of the State Transport Authority of the other State, as the case may be'.

A reading of this section per se reveals that under this section, notwithstanding what is contained in sub-section (1) of Section 88, the Regional Transport Authority of the region as well as the State Transport Authority have been empowered, subject to any rules made under the Act, to grant special permit to any public service vehicle including the vehicles covered by a permit issued under Section 72 or under Section 74 or under Section 88(9) of the Act. The conditions are specified subject to which special permit has to be granted and the period for which it shall be valid and it provides that it shall be valid in other States without being counter-signed. A reading of the section reveal, that no higher authority is required to issue directions to the Regional Transport Authority, Regional Transport Officer or State Transport Authority to grant special permits. Sub-section 88(8) empowers the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, subject to what is provided under sub-section (8), for the convenience of the public, issue special Carriage permit. The question of public convenience may also include the convenience or interest of the students or public involved in educational activities as well as to broaden the vision of the students from the narrow limits of townships of regionalism to that of higher regions namely students of villages may have the light of towns, cities or other regions as well as other parts of the Country. So far as the purpose mentioned, the convenience of the public, particularly the student community, the Transport Authority -- Regional or State -- can grant the permit, but subject to the conditions prescribed in the Act or subject to the rules made by the Government. So, in my opinion, the Regional Transport Officer has mistaken by refusing togrant special permit on the ground that it has not received any direction from the higher authorities. There was no question of higher authority issuing any directions when the Act itself so provides. No doubt, Karnataka Act 21 of 1976, Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, provides for exclusive privilege of running any contract carriages in favour of the State Transport Corporation. A reading of Section 20 of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976, provides as under:

Section 20. Corporation to have exclusive privilege of running any contract carriage.--Notwithstanding anything in the Motor Vehicles Act, with effect on and from the notified date.--

(1) all contract Carriage permits granted or renewed in respect of any vehicle other than a vehicle --

(i) acquired under this Act, or

(ii) belonging to the corporation, or

(iii) referred to in Section 24, shall

stand cancelled;

(2) the corporation shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of Section 24, to the grant or renewal of contract Carriage permits to the exclusion of all other persons; and

(3) no Officer or authority shall invite any application or entertain any such application of persons other than the corporation for the grant of permit for the running of any contract carriage'.

A reading of this section shows that permit is granted with exception to vehicles mentioned in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (1). A reading of this section indicates that the exclusive privilege conferred to the Corporation which will not effect adversely the carriages covered by Section 24. Section 24 of Act 21 of 1976 is exemption clause. It provides as under:

'Section 24. Exemptions.--Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to.--

(i)..... not relevant.

(ii)..... not relevant.

(iii)..... not relevant'.

Clause (iv) which has been added and inserted by the amendment ordinance namely the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1996, reads as under:

'Clause (iv) of Section 24.--Any public service vehicle including any vehicle covered by permit issued under Section 72 (including reserved stage carriages) or under subsection (9) of Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to which a permit under sub-section (8) of Section 88 of the said Act is issued'.

The provisions of Section 24 of the Act 21 of 1976 will not apply to any public service vehicle including other vehicles referred to in respect of which a permit under Section 88(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act is or has been issued. It means it may apply to the cases where permit under Section 88(8) has not been issued.

4. Thus, considered in my opinion, the State Transport Authority and Regional Transport have full jurisdiction to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of special permit on merits and it could not assume that it had no jurisdiction to consider it unless directions from higher authorities are issued. The other reason on which the Regional Transport Authority appeared to have refused to grant special permit is that taxation slab has not been received from higher authorities. Taxation slab if not have been received, in my opinion, it should not have caused any hindrance in the matter of considering and disposing of the application for grant of special permit.

5. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the Secretary to Regional Transport Authority has illegally refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has observed that it cannot consider the application. The endorsement appears to have been passed on misconception of law and its jurisdiction by the Regional Transport Authority. The order impugned as such is quashed and it is directed that opposite party will consider the petitioner's application for special permit under Section 88(8) of the Act on merits and pass suitable orders if there is any question of tax slab etc., being relevant, it may take an undertaking from the petitioner in the form of affidavit and to its own satisfaction that petitioner will pay the tax etc., if any payable with reference to special permit which may be grantedby the authority in accordance with the rules and slabs prescribed and may also require the petitioner to furnish some amount as security for the tax amount. Let the direction to the above effect be issued to the Regional Transport Authority concerned.