K S R T C Vs. R T O BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these three writ petitions, the validity of the temporary permits issuee by the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore, to respondents 2, 3 and 4 on the route Bangalore to Kanakapura, to respondents 2 and 3, and Kanakapura to Bangalore to respondent No. 4, has been, assailed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, which is the petitioner in all these writ petitions.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the temporary permits issued to respondents 2 and 4 are in respect of the notified route under the Kanakapura Pocket Scheme and that Scheme is one of total exclusion of private operators except in relation to existing permit holders on inter-State routes operating stage carriage services overlapping the notified route from Bannur to Mandya cross. Further case of the petitioner is that the routes in question are also covered by the Anekal Pocket Scheme which was published in the Karnataka. Gaztte dated 23-4-1959 and the said scheme is one oi partial exclusion and the first respondent has not also recorded necessary findings to enable them to grant the permit. The Notifications, pertaining to the Kanakapura Pocket Scheme and the Anekal Pocket Scheme are produced at Exts. A and B respectively. The resolutions granting the permits to respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have been produced at Exts. 'D', 'F' and 'H' respectively. The temporary permits granted to respondents 2 and 4 will expire on 15-9-1979 and 15-8-1979 respectively and the one granted to respondent. No. 3 expired on 31-7-1979.

(3.) Sri M.Rangaswamy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that ?n view of the provisions contained in Ss. 68B, 68D(3), 68F (2) (a) and 68FF read with S. 2(20) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to grant the temporary permits in respect of the routes overlapping the nationalised route covered by the Kanakapura Pocket Scheme which is a scheme of total exclusion published on 30-12-1975. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2, 3 and 4 contended that the petitioner is not operating the services in accordance with the Kanakapura Pocket Scheme and the required number of trips are not being operated by the petitioner, therefore, it was contended that the mere fact that the routes: covered by the temporary permits overlap the notified route covered by Kanakapura Pocket Scheme, will not in any way, affect the jurisdiction of the RTA and the grant of temporary permit made by it, because the petitioner is not operating the services in accordance with the scheme.