- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11603 WP No. 15244 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 15244 OF 2021 (MV) BETWEEN: UDAYASHANKAR S/O KRISHNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.BELTHODU HOUSE, NARINGANA POST AND VILLAGE, BUNTWALA TALUK, MANGALORE …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C V KUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE, BY ITS SECRETARY-575104 2. SRI GANESH N SHETTY S/O NANDAPPA SHETTY, AKSHAYA, JEPPINAMOGARU, MANGALURU, D K DISTRICT-575109 3. SRI N S ABDUL GAFOOR S/O N SUNHI, R/AT NAKRE HOUSE, MANGALANTHI, MANJANADY, MANGALORE TALUK, D K DISTRICT-575106 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11603 WP No. 15244 of 2021 4. SRI R JAYAGOVINDA BHAT S/O GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT, R/AT SHARADA MOTORS, KOLLARAMAJALU, KADRI ROAD, MANGALURU D K DISTRICT-575102 5. SRI A K JAYARAM SHEKA S/O BABU SHEKA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT JYOTHI PRAKASH, KULASHEKARA, MANGALURU-575105 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJKUMAR, AGA FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE DATED 28.06.2021 MADE IN APPEAL NUMBERS 189/2018, 190/2018, 191/2018 AND 192/2018 ANNEXURE-J. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is a Stage Carriage Permit Holder [in No.233/DK/98-99] operating between the State Bank to Thoudugoly, Dakshina Kannada with six round trips per day. The - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11603 WP No. 15244 of 2021 petitioner has called in question the common judgment dated 28.06.2021 in Appeal Nos.189/2018, 190/2018, 191/2018 and 192/2018 on the file of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The Tribunal, by this common judgment dated 28.06.2021, has set aside the first respondent – the Regional Transport Authority’s Order dated 05.02.2018 in Sub No.13/2011-12. 2. Sri. C. V. Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the question for consideration in this petition will be whether the Tribunal could have interfered with the Regional Transport Authority - RTA’s Order permitting the curtailment of the route in public interest. The learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has opined that the curtailment results in variation - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11603 WP No. 15244 of 2021 beyond 24 KMs, and that the Tribunal has so opined because it has multiplied the variation per trip [from 8 Kms – to 5 Kms] into number of trips. 3. Sri. C. V. Kumar submits that the question as aforesaid arises for consideration despite the finding in this regard by the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation in its order dated 21.07.2016. Sri.Rajkumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the first respondent, is heard for disposal of the petition answering the question as proposed by Sri. C. V. Kumar. The second to fifth respondents, who are the appellants before the Tribunal, have remained unrepresented though served. 4. The petitioner's route as originally permitted and with the curtailment is brought out in a Rough Sketch which is enclosed as Annexure-A, and this Sketch reads as under: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11603 WP No. 15244 of 2021 The petitioner, with the curtailment allowed by the first respondent, instead of reaching Derale Katte enroute to Thoudugoli from Thokkottu via Beeri will now reach Derale Katte via Kutar, and consequentially, the distance between Thokkottu - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11603 WP No. 15244 of 2021 and Derale Katte is reduced from 8 KMs to 5 KMs. 5. The RTA, by its order dated 20.10.2012, has rejected the petitioner's request for curtailment but allowed the request for variation in the timings for the original trip [that is without the proposed curtailment]. The petitioner has called this order dated 20.10.2012 in question in an appeal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, 'the MV Act'] in Appeal No.1966/2012, and the Tribunal has allowed this appeal by its order dated 22.06.2013 opining that there was no material that would justify refusal of the request for curtailment holding that the variation would be within 24 KMs as contemplated under Section 80(3) of the MV Act and that it would not pass through notified routes. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11603 WP No. 15244 of 2021 6. After the Tribunal's order dated 22.06.2013, the Secretary, RTA has issued Endorsement dated 03.09.2013 approving the timing with the variation, and consequentially, the petitioner was operating between the State Bank and Thoudugoly via Pumpwell, Thokkottu, Kuttar and Derlakatte instead of between State Bank and Thoudugoly via Pumpwell, Thokkottu, Beeri and Derlakatte. The private respondents have called in question the Tribunal's order dated 22.06.2013 in W.P.No.51843/2013 and connected writ petitions. 7. This Court has interfered with the Tribunal's order opining that it would be just and fair to permit the petitioner to operate on the curtailed route until the first respondent hears these private respondents. The private respondents are impleaded on remand and the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11603 WP No. 15244 of 2021 Tribunal, by its order dated 21.07.2016, has remanded the matter for reconsideration by the RTA. As emphasized by Sri. C. V. Kumar, the Tribunal has categorically opined that the curtailment would not violate the stipulation of 24 KMs but concluded that there must be reconsideration on whether such curtailment would be in public interest and that this requires reconsideration with due opportunity to all the concerned. 8. It is undisputed that even after this order, the petitioner has continued to operate on the curtailed route. The RTA, after this remand, has again approved the curtailment stating that the public interest would be served because the petitioner would be operating along a route that has many Educational Institutions and Hospitals. The private respondents have called in question - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11603 WP No. 15244 of 2021 the RTA's order dated 25.11.2017 with the Tribunal in their separate appeals, and the Tribunal has intervened by its order dated 11.01.2018 [in Appeal Nos.225/2017, 232/2017, 234/2017, 235/2017 and 236/2017] restoring the proceedings for reconsideration but on the limited ground that one officer had heard the parties, but another had issued order dated 25.11.2017. 9. The RTA, once again by its order dated 05.02.2018, has permitted the petitioner to operate on the curtailed route in terms of the timing endorsed on 03.09.2013. The private respondents have called in question the RTA's order dated 05.02.2018 in the said appeals in Nos.189/2018, 190/2018, 191/2018 and 192/2018 and the Tribunal by the impugned order has interfered opining thus on referring to - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:11603 WP No. 15244 of 2021 the provisions of Section 80(3) and Section 72 of the MV Act. "16. After going through the sec. 72 of MV Act, it is crystal clear that the variation shall not be varied so as to alter the distance covered by the original route by more than 24 kms, and any variation within such limits shall be made only after the RTA is satisfied the such variation will service the convenience of the public that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as to varied. 17. Keeping in mind the above settled principle of law let me examined the case is in hand in the instant case the authority granted variations of 5 kms for 1 single trips. One trip means "Staring point to the ending point of service", therefore in my view the common impugned order dated 05-02-2018 has been passed in violation of Sec 80 (3) & Sec.72 of Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 and." 10. It is obvious that the Tribunal has interfered with the RTA's order dated 05.02.2018 because of its reading of the provisions of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:11603 WP No. 15244 of 2021 Sections 80(3) and 72 of the MV Act1. The provisions of Section 80(3) read as under: "80(3) An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, or in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit: Provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat an application made by the holder of stage carriage permit who provides the only service on any route to increase the frequency of the service so provided without any increase in the number of vehicles: Provided further that,— 1 Section 72 of the MV Act, broadly stated empowers grant of Stage Carriage Permits and the condition upon which grant can be made. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:11603 WP No. 15244 of 2021 (i) in the case of variation, the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres; (ii) (ii) in the case of extension, the distance covered by extension shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres from the termini, and any such variation or extension within such limits shall be made only after the transport authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof." 11. An application for variation or extension or curtailment in the route or routes or the areas specified in the permit must be treated as an application for grant of a new permit. However, if the variation is within the termini for which the permit is issued and if the distance - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:11603 WP No. 15244 of 2021 covered by the variation does not exceed 24 KMs, the Transport Authority can accept the request as a variation if is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit. The essential test with variation should be related to the alteration of the termini and the distance covered by the variation and these must be tested as against a single trip. If this test is to be applied as against multiple trips, the statute must spell it out. Neither the Section 80(3) nor Section 72 of the MV Act specifically contemplate the test to be applied across multiple trips. 12. In fact, if a permit holder seeks an increase in the number of trips, it must be considered independent of the rigor of 24 KMs and that would also be where there is an application for extra trips. In this regard, this - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:11603 WP No. 15244 of 2021 Court must refer to the decisions of this Court in W.P.No.25775/1991 and W.P.No.15776/1991 decided on 29.03.1995, wherein it is opined that an application for an increase in number of trips and application for variation/extension/ curtailment are treated distinctly and the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the MV Act, which contemplates the test of 24 KMs, will not apply for applications for increasing the number of trips. This Court is of the considered view that this enunciation clinches the issue on multiplying the variation across multiple trips to apply the test of 24 KMs. Hence, the following: ORDER a. The petition is allowed. b. The Tribunal's impugned order dated 28.06.2021 in Appeal Nos.189/2018, - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:11603 WP No. 15244 of 2021 190/2018, 191/2018 and 192/2018 is quashed. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB