words per minute
34
meghasoni
00:00
Speed
With
C.A. No.4481/1998, C.A. Nos.7195-7197/2001, C.A.
No.2782/2002, C.A. No.7299/2002, C.A. No.3605/2003,
C.A. No.3606/2003, C.A. No.3633/2003, C.A.
Nos.3731-3733/2003, C.A. No.3853/2003, SLP(C)
Nos.22621-22622/2015
J U D G M E N T
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
1. This reference to this Constitution Bench was
made by a Division Bench of this Court in their order dated
22.07.2003 made in the case of R. Raghuram Vs. P.
Jayarama Naidu and others reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC
361, which reference though was initially made to a Three
Judges Bench, was subsequently referred to the Constitution
Bench by the Three Judges Bench led by the Honourable The
Chief Justice of India vide order dated 01.12.2004. As the
issues raised and argued before us were common, on the
question referred, we heard arguments in common.
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 1 of 42
Page 2
2. We heard the arguments of Mr. K.K. Venugopal,
learned senior counsel for the appellant in the
C.A.No.3606/2003, Ms. Kiran Suri, learned senior counsel for
the appellant in C.A.No.4480/1998, Mr. A. Mariarputham,
learned senior counsel for the appellant in
C.A.Nos.7195-7197/2001, Mr. Amit Singh Chaddha, learned
senior counsel for the appellant in C.A.3853/2003 and Mr.
Raju Rammachandran, learned senior counsel for the
respondent(s) in C.A.No.4480/1998.
3. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel made
his leading submissions, followed by Ms.Suri and Mr. Chaddha
as well as Mr. Mariarputham, learned senior counsels for the
appellants, while Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior
counsel addressed arguments on behalf of the respondents in
these appeals.
4. Mr. K. K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the
appellant in C.A.3606 of 2003 made a brief reference to the
order dated 22.07.2003, by which the present reference
came to be made to the Constitution Bench and the
subsequent order dated 01.12.2004 as well. Learned senior
counsel in his submissions, fairly pointed out that the issue
concerned in this reference has to be considered by referring
to the decisions reported in Karnataka State Road
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 2 of 42
Page 3
Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. B.A.Jayaram and
others - 1984 (Supp) SCC 244 (hereinafter referred to as
‘JAYARAM’), Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs.
M.A.Egappan - 1987 (2) SCC 47 (hereinafter referred to as
‘EGAPPAN’), Adarsh Travels Bus Service and another
Vs. State of U.P. and others – (1985) 4 SCC 557
(hereinafter referred to as ‘ADARSH TRAVELS’),
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation,
Bangalore Vs. Karnataka State Transport Authority,
Bangalore and others -1987 (Supp) SCC 648
(hereinafter referred to as ‘KSRTC’) and R.Raghuram
(supra) (hereinafter referred to as ‘RAGHURAM’).
5. The learned senior counsel made a detailed
reference to the list of dates commencing from 1963-64
when the initial permit in the case of appellant in C.A.3606 of
2003 viz., permit No.13/63-64 for the Route Bangalore to
Hosur via., Madivala, Chandapura, Anekal, Thali,
Denkanikottah and Keelamangalam came to be issued, which
permit was originally granted in favour of one Mr. C.
Rajasekaran and subsequently transferred to Smt. G. Kavitha
Gopinath on 12.03.1998 and even thereafter transferred in
favour of the present appellant Smt. A.M. Kalaivani Ammal.
The learned senior counsel also referred to the application
C.A. NO.4480 of 1998 Page 3 of 42
Page 4
made by the appellant on 10.01.1985 to the State Transport
Authority (STA), Bangalore for grant of four additional singles
and one additional vehicle by the order dated 10.01.1985,
the Authority granted two additional singles with inclusion of
one additional vehicle. Thereafter by referring to the
subsequent proceedings initiated at the instance of the
appellant, the learned senior counsel referred to the order of
the STAT, Madras as well as that of the order of the learned
Single Judge in C.R.P.No.553 of 1988 and the order of the
Division Bench in W.A.No.750 and 780 of 2002 dated
23.03.2002 pursuant to which the present appeal came to be
filed.
6. The learned senior counsel referred to Section
48(3)(xxi), Section 57(8) and Section 63 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”),
which pertain to the statutory prescriptions concerning grant
of variation as well as the requirement for the counter
signature respectively. The learned senior counsel also fairly
referred to the provisions viz., Sections 68A, 68B, 68FF
falling under Chapter IV-A of the Act while making his
submissions.