- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14047 WP No. 17752 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24468 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.17752 OF 2021 (MV) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.24468 OF 2021 (MV) IN W.P. NO.17752/2021 BETWEEN: SMT. R. PUSHPA W/O LATE P.R. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PROP: SRI HANUMAN MOTOR SERVICE, SIRA MAIN ROAD, SIRA – 572 137. TUMAKURU (DIST). …PETITIONER (BY SRI C.M.S. SHARIFF, ADVOCATE AND SRI SHAILENDRA B.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, T.T.M.C. COMPLEX, ‘A’ BLOCK, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027. 2. THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI M. RAO, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14047 WP No. 17752 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24468 of 2021 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.228/2018 DATED 10.08.2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-D. IN W.P. NO.24468/2021 BETWEEN: SMT. P.R. NAGASUDHA W/O MALLI SURESH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, PROP: HANUMAN MOTOR SERVICE, SIRA-572 137, TUMAKURU (DIST.) ...PETITIONER (BY SRI C.M.S. SHARIFF, ADVOCATE AND SRI SHAILENDRA B.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, T.T.M.C. COMPLEX, ‘A’ BLOCK, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027. BY SECRETARY. 2. THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI M. RAO, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.229/2018 DATED 10.08.2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-D. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14047 WP No. 17752 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24468 of 2021 THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The short question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is: “Whether, while considering the variation of a stage carriage permit under Section 80 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“MV Act”, for short), the distance of variation has to be calculated by adding both onward and return journeys?” 2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are aggrieved by the common order dated 10.08.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal” for short) in Appeal Nos.228/2018 and 229/2018, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeals filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (“Corporation” for short) and set aside the orders dated 08.02.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Transport - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14047 WP No. 17752 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24468 of 2021 Authority (“Authority” for short) granting variation of the petitioner's stage carriage permits. Brief facts: 3. The petitioner in W.P.No.17752/2021 is the holder of Stage Carriage Permit No.77/93-94, and the petitioner in W.P.No.24468/2021 is the holder of Stage Carriage Permit No.29/92-93, both operating on the route Pavagada-Sira and back. The petitioners submitted application dated 25.04.2017 seeking variation of their existing permits by way of curtailment of a portion of the route and deviation/extension of the route in the middle sector along with the revision of timings under the provisions of the MV Act. The Authority, after obtaining joint route survey report dated 24.05.2017 and after hearing the parties, considered the applications in its meeting held on 20.01.2018 and granted variations sought by the petitioners by order dated 08.02.2018, holding that the variation was within the permissible limit prescribed under the statute and that the route was non-monopoly. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14047 WP No. 17752 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24468 of 2021 4. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Corporation preferred Appeal Nos.228/2018 and 229/2018 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its common order dated 10.08.2021 allowed the appeals and set aside the variation granted by the State Transport Authority. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that: i. The variation sought by the petitioners was within the permissible limit of 24 kilometers as contemplated under Section 80 (3) of the MV Act. ii. The Tribunal has erroneously calculated the distance by adding the forward and return journeys, thereby arriving at 41.6 kilometers which is contrary to the statutory provision. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14047 WP No. 17752 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24468 of 2021 iii. Section 80(3) refers only to the distance of variation of the route and not to the cumulative distance of onward and return journeys. iv. The Authority, after considering the joint route survey report has rightly granted the variation in the interest of the traveling public. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation supports the impugned orders and contends that: i. While considering the variation of route, total distance of the route operated in both directions must be taken into consideration as per Section 70 of the MV Act. ii. If both directions are taken together, the variation exceeds the statutory limit of 24 kilometers and therefore the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the State Transport Authority. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14047 WP No. 17752 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24468 of 2021 7. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. The controversy revolves around Section 80 (3) of the MV Act, which reads as under: “80. Procedure in applying for and granting permits.— (1) x x x (2) x x x (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: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14047 WP No. 17752 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24468 of 2021 Provided further that,— (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) 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.” Emphasis supplied 9. The Tribunal has relied upon the explanation to Section 70 of the MV Act, which defines a “trip”, as a single journey from one point to another, and on that basis has added the distance of the onward and return journeys to hold that the variation exceeds 24 kilometers. Such an approach cannot be sustained. Section 70 relates - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14047 WP No. 17752 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24468 of 2021 to applications for stage carriage permits and the number of trips operated, whereas Section 80(3) governs variation of route. The proviso to Section 80 (3) only requires that the termini shall not be altered and the distance of variation shall not exceed 24 kilometers. The provision does not contemplate the addition of the onward and return journeys for calculating the distance of variation. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Mysore State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal1 (Mysore State Road Transport Corporation), Adarsh Travels Bus Service and Another Vs. State of U.P and Others2 (Adarsh Travels), H.C. Narayanappa and Others Vs. State of Mysore3 (H.C. Narayanappa), Ali Ahmad and Sons Vs. Miscellaneous first appeals Ramgopal Satya 1 (1974) 1 SCR 615 2 AIR 1986 SC 319 3 AIR 1960 SC 1073 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14047 WP No. 17752 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24468 of 2021 Narin and Others4 (Ali Ahmad) and KSRTC Vs. Ashrafulla Khan5 (Ashrafulla Khan) as well as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of G K Venkatashiva Reddy Vs. KSTAT and Others6 (G K Venkatashiva) to contend that no variation can be granted in violation of notified transport scheme. However, the said decisions are distinguishable and they deal with a situation where permit variation encroaches upon a notified route under a approved scheme. In the present case, the material on record indicates that the variation granted by the Authority pertains to long monopoly route and the termini of the permit unchanged and therefore, the principles laid down in the said decision are not attracted to the facts of the present case. 11. The word “termini”, is used in Section 80 (3) of the MV Act. Termini is a plural of “terminus”. Terminus means the end of point or starting point of a transport 4 (1974) 2 SCC 491 5 AIR 2002 SC 629 6 2011 KAR 162 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14047 WP No. 17752 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24468 of 2021 route and thus the expression ‘termini’ refers to the starting point and the ending point of the route covered by the permit. The joint route survey report and the route map produced clearly indicate that the termini of the permit remained unchanged and only an intermediate segment of the route has been deviated. The map demonstrates that the distance of varied portion of the route is approximately 19.8/20.8 kilometers. Thus, the variation falls within the permissible limit of 24 kilometers prescribed under Section 80 (3) of the MV Act. The Tribunal, while setting aside the order of the Authority, has failed to properly appreciate the survey report and the route map placed on record. 12. Accordingly, this Court holds that the Tribunal has misdirected itself in law while interpreting Section 80 (3) and has erroneously set aside the orders passed by the Authority and accordingly, point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14047 WP No. 17752 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24468 of 2021 ORDER i. The writ petitions are allowed. ii. The order dated 10.08.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal Nos.228/2018 and 229/2018 is hereby quashed. iii. The orders dated 08.02.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Authority, granting variation of the permits is restored. iv. The petitioners shall be entitled to operate the stage carriage services in terms of the variation granted by the State Transport Authority. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14