AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.L. Manjunath, J.—The appellants herein are questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 08.12.2010 in WP No. 4950/2008 and other connected matters.
Heard learned counsel appearing for all the parties.
The appellants herein were contesting respondents before the learned Single Judge. The writ petitions were filed by some of the operators challenging the legality and correctness of the notification published at Annexure-VIII Sl. Nos. 6, 43, 68 and 69 as contrary to law and such notification, if given effect, the petitioners rights would be affected.
The first writ petitioner was an existing State Carriage Operator, operating on the route B. Kothakota to Bangalore and back to perform two round trips daily. Second writ petitioner is also an existing State Carriage Operator operating on route Chintamani to Khadri via Royalpad, Madanapalli, B. Kothakota etc., They have been operating their services on an inter-State routes covered under reciprocal inter-state agreement between the State of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. From time to time, both the States are entering into inter-state agreement and in the instant case, a draft notification was published by the State for fixing the routes, by opening the routes by giving extension to the existening inter-State permit between B. Kothakota to Chintamani which covers a distance of 70 Kms.
It is the specific case of the writ petitioners that they did not file objections to draft proposal for extension of the route between B. Kothakota to Chintamani, as it did not affect their rights. They were surprised to see final notification issued vide Annexure-B to the writ petitions, that the route between B. Kothakota to Chintamani, has been extended from Chintamani to Bangalore and B. Kothakota to Kadri. Contending such variation is impermissible and contrary to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short hereinafter referred to as "MV Act") and that the extension from Chintamani to Bangalore covering a distance of 70 Kms. and from B. Kothakota to Kadri 55 kms. which would take away the very intention of publication of the draft notification. It was also contended by the writ petitioners that under the draft notification the route had been opened between Kadri to Bangalore instead of B. Kothakota to Chintamani, they had an opportunity to file objections. In such circumstances, it was for the second respondent to consider their objections. It was also contended by them that a variation can be considered. However such variation shall not exceed 24 kms. under Clause 3 of Section 80 of MV Act. Therefore, they request the Court to quash the notification dated 07.03.2008.
The appellants herein who are beneficiary of opening such route under the notification in question contested the matters on the ground that Sub-section 5 of Section 88 of MV Act enables the State Government to extend the route and the petitioners cannot question such variation since no illegality is committed by the Government in publishing the notification. In the circumstances, they requested the court to dismiss the writ petitions.
Learned Single Judge having examined the matters in detail, came to the conclusion that final publication of the route vide Annexure-B is not inconsonance with the draft notification and there is a variation between the draft publication and final notification which increases the distance. The draft notification discloses that the route would be open between B. Kothakota to Chintamani covering a distance of 70 Kms. has been extended in the final publication on both sides from B. Kothakota to Kadri and Chintamani to Bangalore which covers the distance of more than 200 Kms. and such variation is impermissible. Accordingly, the writ petitions came to be allowed.
Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are filed.
We have heard Sri C.V. Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. He relied upon the judgment of Rajasthan High Court reported in Nirmal Kumar and Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, wherein, it is held that it is not beyond the scope of Section 88(5) of the MV Act. A proposal become final only when final shape is given to and even if there is a variation between the draft publication and final declaration, the same cannot be held to be without any legislative competence. Therefore, he requests the Court to allow the appeals and set-aside the order of the learned Single Judge. According to him, the respondents who were writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge have no locus standi to question the writ petitions, since they are not aggrieved persons as they are all rival operators.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supporting the order of the learned Single Judge contend that the final declaration shall be inconsonance with the draft notification, if there is a minor variation, normally, Courts will not interfere with such minor variations between the draft publication and final publication. According to him, in the instant case, the very object of draft notification is taken away by extending the road from a distance of 55 kms. to more than 200 kms. Therefore, such variation cannot be considered as minor variation. According to them, the variation of route cannot be beyond 24 kms. He further contended that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in Nirmal Kumar''s Case has no application to the facts of these cases. The Rajasthan High Court while considering the increase in the number of permits, more than specified in the proposal held that it is within the legislative competence. In this case, it is not the question, of increase of permit, but it is the question of extending the route on both the terminals beyond the original distance. Therefore, they request the Court to dismiss the appeal.
Having heard the counsel for the appellant and the Government Advocate, what is to be considered by us in these appeals is:
Whether learned Single Judge has committed an error in allowing the writ petitions? 12. The facts in these appeals are not in dispute to the following extent.
The parties herein admit that draft notification published was from B. Kothakota to Chintamani covering the distance of 70 Kms. It is also the case of the writ petitioners that they did not file objections to draft notification because opening of inter-state route between B. Kothakota and Chintamani was not affecting their State carriages.
According to them, they have been affected on account of publication of the final notification since the route has been extended from B. Kothakota to Kadri and Chintamani to Bangalore, the distance between Khadri to Bangalore is more than 285 kms. and they would be affected by such extension. Therefore, it is contended that they have been deprived of filing objections to the draft publication, and the variations is not a minor. Even according to MV Act, variation can be granted upto 24 kms. But in the existing case, it is more than 3 times of the draft notification between B. Kothakota to Chintamani.
In this background, the learned Single Judge by considering the provisions of Sub-section 5 of Section 88 of the MV Act has come to the conclusion that such variation is not inconsonance with the draft publication. This Court cannot found fault with the order of the learned Single Judge. In addition to that we have also examined the decision relied upon by the appellant counsel rendered by the Rajasthan High Court. The said judgment has been rendered under a different context. In the said case number of permits were increased but in the instant case the route itself is varied from the draft notification. In such circumstances, if the learned Single Judge has granted relief, this Court cannot find fault with the order.
Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.