- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14046 WP No. 7536 of 2022 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.7536 OF 2022 (MV) BETWEEN: B.V. ASHOK AGE 40 YEARS, S/O B.G. VENKATESH, SRI VENKATESHWARA MOTOR SERVICE, NO.9-A, RACE COURSE ROAD, MADHAVANAGR, BENGALURU-560 001 (TRANSFEREE OF THE PERMIT HELD BY B.G. MURALIDHAR) …PETITIONER (BY SRI M.E. NAGESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TTMC BUILDING, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI M. RAO, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI T. HAREESH BHANDARY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS; QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.230/2018 DATED 27.07.2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-D. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14046 WP No. 7536 of 2022 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who is a transferee of Stage Carriage Permit No.55/92-93 for route Bengaluru-Sira and back, has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 27.07.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal” for short) in Appeal No.230/2018, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the Karnataka State Transport Road Transport Corporation (“Corporation” for short) and set aside the order dated 08.02.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Authority (“Authority” for short) granting variation of the permit. Brief facts: 2. The permit originally stood in the name of B.G. Muralidhar, which was subsequently transferred in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner sought variation of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14046 WP No. 7536 of 2022 permit by seeking curtailment and deviation of certain portions of the route along with the revision of timings. The Authority, after considering the proposal, and report submitted by the concerned authorities, granted the variation by its order dated 08.02.2018, holding that the variation proposed was within permissible limits prescribed under Section 80 (3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’ for short). 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the Corporation preferred Appeal No.230/2018 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 27.07.2021, allowed the appeal and set aside the variation granted by the Authority on the ground that the variation exceeded the permissible distance of 24 kilometers prescribed under Section 80 (3) of the MV Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal has totally misinterpreted the provisions of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14046 WP No. 7536 of 2022 Section 80(3) of the MV Act. It is submitted that the variation granted by the Authority was within 24 kilometers, which is the limit prescribed under the statute. It is further contended that the Tribunal has erroneously calculated the distance by taking into account both the forward and return journey, thereby arriving at a figure of 42 kilometers, which is contrary to Section 80 (3) of the MV Act. It is submitted that the statute only prescribes that the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed 24 kilometers, it does not contemplate computation of the forward and return journey together. Therefore, it is contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is legally unsustainable. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation supports the order passed by the Tribunal and contends that the variation granted by the State Transport Authority would effectively increase the route beyond the permissible limit prescribed under Section 80 (3). It is contended that while considering the variation, the entire - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14046 WP No. 7536 of 2022 trip including forward and return journeys has to be taken into account. Since the variation granted would result in the distance exceeding 24 kilometers when both directions are considered, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the Authority. 6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the Authority by holding that variation granted exceeds the permissible limit prescribed under Section 80(3) of the MV Act?” 7. Section 80(3) of the MV Act 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, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14046 WP No. 7536 of 2022 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,— (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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14046 WP No. 7536 of 2022 expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof.” Emphasis supplied 8. The said provision provides that the variation of conditions of a permit shall not be treated as a grant of a new permit provided that their meaning was not altered and the distance covered by the variation does not exceed 24 kilometers. The language employed in the proviso clearly refers to the distance covered by the variation. The statute does not provide that the distance should be calculated by adding both forward and return journeys. In the present case, the statutory Authority had recorded a finding that the distance of the proposed variation was within the permissible limit of 24 kilometers. The Tribunal, however, has proceeded on the premise that the distance has to be calculated by taking into account both onward and forward journeys and on that basis has concluded that the variation would amount to 42 kilometers. Such interpretation cannot be sustained. The restriction - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14046 WP No. 7536 of 2022 imposed under Section 80(3) relates only to the distance of variation and not the aggregate distance of the round trip. 9. 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 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 1 (1974) 1 SCR 615 2 AIR 1986 SC 319 3 AIR 1960 SC 1073 4 (1974) 2 SCC 491 5 AIR 2002 SC 629 6 2011 KAR 162 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14046 WP No. 7536 of 2022 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. 10. The Tribunal has relied upon the concept of “trip” under Section 70 of the MV Act, which deals with application for stage carriage permits. However, the said concept cannot be imported into Section 80(3) of the MV Act considering the variation of permit conditions. Therefore, the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is contrary to the statutory scheme and cannot be sustained and the point framed for consideration is answered accordingly and this Court pass the following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14046 WP No. 7536 of 2022 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The Order dated 27.07.2021 passed by the State Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.230/2018 is set aside. iii. Consequently, the order dated 08.02.2018 passed by the State Transport Authority, granting variation of the permit in favour of the petitioner stands restored. iv. The petitioner 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.: 15