- (1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has been operating Bus bearing Registration No. KA.07/3144 on an inter-State route from Bangalore to V.Kota. V.Kota is in Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner complains that respondents 4 to 7 preferred applications before the State Transport Authority (STA) Bangalore for seeking a permit of a Stage Carriage on a route formulated from Bangalore to Pathanhalli via Andhra Pradesh State border at V.Kota etc., and vice-versa. It is alleged that the said route overlaps several approved schemes published in favour of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) as well as Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). It is alleged that there are two approved schemes of Andhra Pradesh State published in G.O. Ms. No.41, dated 5-1-1977 and G.O. Ms. No.773 dated 3-6-1975. G.O. Ms. No.41 scheme is in respect of route from Chittoor to Kupppam via Palmaner and V.Kota. Under the said scheme only existing permit holders on the inter-State routes have been exempted and there is a total ban or prohibition for future permits on the said inter-State route. Similarly G.O. Ms. No.773 scheme does not permit any new issuance of permit on the inter-State route. Inspite of the total ban on issuance of new permits which overlap any of the routes under the above two schemes, respondent Nos.4 to 7 have been granted permits, which are illegal and void as violative of Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 thereafter referred to as 'the New Act') and respondent Nos.4 to 7 should be barred from operating any of their vehicle in the State of Andhra Pradesh unless counter-signature from the State Transport Authority (STA), Andhra Pradesh has been obtained by them for such routes. It is also alleged that they are not paying taxes to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner contends that he made a representation to 2nd respondent on 3-6-1998 to take appropriate action against respondent Nos.4 to 7 in this regard. Second respondent has directed the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent as later was the competent authority. The petitioner claims to have made a representation to respondent No, I on 4-8-1998. The 1st respondent then addressed a letter on 21-8-1998 to 2nd respondent for making certain factual verification. The 2nd respondent then informed the 1st respondent that the grant of permit to respondents 4 to 7 was violative of G.O. Ms. No.41. The petitioner submits that in view of these developments, it was necessary for respondent No.1 to take steps to stop operation of buses by respondent Nos.4 to 7 in State of Andhra Pradesh. Instead of taking steps, respondent No.1 addressed a letter dated 9-12-1998 to Secretary, STA., Karnataka. The STA Karnataka was requested to take suitable action. Respondent No.! ought to have cancelled the permit or modified the permits of the existing route by exercising his jurisdiction. It is submitted that though the route for which respondent Nos.4 to 7 have been granted permits have been shown as enclave route, the route start from Bangalore in Karnataka State and terminate at V.Kota bus stand in Andhra pradesh State and were not enclave routes. The provisions of Section 89(1) require counter-signature for such routes. The route is not covered by any inter-State agreement. It is therefore, contended that the action of respondent No.1 in not implementing the law against respondent Nos.4 to 7 is highly illegal as respondent Nos.4 to 7 did not hold any valid permit. It is prayed that inaction of respondent No.1 in not taking action on the representation made by petitioner dated 4-8-1998 is non-exercise of jurisdiction vested in him and hence direction is sought that respondent No.1 be directed to take appropriate steps against respondent Nos.4 to 7 in respect of routes granted to them by illegal permits.
(2.) Respondent Nos.4 to 6 have taken a joint stand and respondent Nos.1 to 7 has filed an independent counter.
(3.) Sum and substance of the stand of respondent Nos.4 to 7 is that petitioner has no focus standi to file writ petition in view of the settled legal position that existing bus operator cannot take exception to the act of the authorities in considering cases of or granting permits to some new operators after coming into force of the new Motor Vehicles Act of 1988. It is further contended that the routes granted to respondent Nos.4 to 7 are enclave routes and for them no counter-signatures of Andhra Pradesh State - authorities required the route no where stops in State of Andhra Pradesh. It only goes through V.Kota but does not stop at V.Kota. Both the termini of the route are in the State of Karnataka and hence it is enclave route. It is further pointed out that Karnataka State RTC and Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation had taken objection before the STA., Bangalore, in granting permits to respondent Nos.4 to 7. The said objections were overruled. Thereafter, revisions were filed before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT), Bangalore against the order of STA, Karnataka. The revisions were dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the revisions filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, writ petitioners bearing Nos. 13159 and 13172 of 1998 were filed in the High Court of Karnataka. The said writ petitions were also dismissed, A Writ Appeal is pending against that decision of the learned single Judge. The petitioner has later tiled WP No.6965-68 of 1999 before the High Court of Kamataka. The said writ petition is pending along with the Writ Appeal preferred by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. The petitioner has suppressed these facts and therefore, on ground of suppression of material facts, the writ petition should be dismissed.;