IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.17416/2017 (MV) BETWEEN :
B.H.UMESH S/O HIRIYANNA GOWDA AGE 46 YEARS BILVE HAKLU MANE THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA-577432. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.M.E.NAGESH, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD CORPORATION K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR BENGALURU – 560027.
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIJAYA KUMAR A.PATIL, AGA FOR R1; SRI.H.M.MANJUNATH, ADV., FOR R2) 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 R.P.96/2016 ON 16.03.2016 AT ANNEXURE-E. ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to accept notice on behalf of the respondent No.1. Learned counsel Sri.H.M.Manjunath is permitted to accept notice on behalf of the respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) in R.P.No.96/2016 dated 16.03.2016 [Annexure-E to the writ petition].
3. The petitioner is the holder of stage carriage permit valid up to 30.12.2002. As such, an application was filed for further renewal. The first respondent after hearing the petitioner as well as the second respondent, renewed the permit holding that as per the modified notification dated 28.05.2007, issued by the State of Karnataka, the permit of the petitioner is saved and the objections regarding counter signature to the inter-regional route would not apply to this case. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent/KSRTC has filed revision petition before the Tribunal. The petitioner remained ex-parte in the said proceedings. The Tribunal proceeded to pass the final order setting aside the order of renewal passed by the respondent No.1. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material on record.
5. This Court in writ petition No.44313/2015 and connected matters (DD 24.03.2017), considered the modified scheme dated 28.05.2007 and held that no blanket orders can be passed sans the report of the joint route survey. Hence, the matters were remanded to the Regional Transport Authority (‘RTA’ for short) to conduct a Joint Route Survey and then to consider the renewal applications in terms of the notification dated 28.05.2007 issued under the modified Shivamogga scheme. In the light of the said judgment, it is imperative to hold the Joint Route Survey and then to consider the renewal application of the petitioner. Yet another reason for setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matter to the RTA would be the routes and the timings assigned to the petitioner do not provide for the petitioner to operate the services in the Shivamogga bus stand. However, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the petitioner’s permit had the route including the Shivamogga bus stand. Perhaps on this ground it was held that petitioner cannot be considered as a saved operator under the modified Shivamogga scheme. This observation is against the timings assigned by the Authorities as per Annexure-A. Hence, this aspect has to be reconsidered by the respondent No.1 in terms of the route permitted and the timings assigned.
6. Hence, the impugned order at Annexure-E is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent No.1 to reconsider the renewal application after holding Joint Route Survey and notifying the rival sector operators in the route, as expeditiously as possible within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Till then, the petitioner is permitted to operate the service in terms of the temporary permit granted by the Authorities.
The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.
Sd/- JUDGE NC