IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.6581 – 6586/2019 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. K.S.SIDDARAJA URS S/O B.M.SIDDARAJA URS AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NANJANGUD ROAD T.NARASIPURA, MYSURU DISTRICT 2. P.PUTTARAJU S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT HOSATHIRUMALA KUDALU T.NARASIPURA, MYSURU DISTRICT 3. SMT.M.V.MANJULA W/O DATTA, AGE 38 YEARS, NO.41, 1ST MAIN, JAYALAKSHMIPURA, MYSURU 4. D.PURSHOTHAM S/O LATE DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT 80/A, B.K. ROAD, 2ND STAGE, SIDHARTHANAGAR, MYSURU ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI A.SRIKANTH, ADV.] AND:
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MYSURU-570001 BY ITS SECRETARY 2. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560027 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI HARISH BHANDARY, ADV. FOR R-2.] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL REVISION PETITION IN SO FAR AS 1ST PETITIONER R.P.NO.129/2014, 2ND PETITIONER R.P.NO.203/2014, 3RD PETITIONER NO.206/2014 AND 4TH PETITIONER R.P.NO.113/2014 R.P.NO.136/2014, R.P.NO.202/2014 DATED 02.06.2015 WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioners have challenged the common order passed by the Tribunal in R.P.Nos.129/2014, 203/2014, 206/2014, 113/2014, 136/2014 and 202/2014 dated 02.06.2015 as well as the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) in its meeting held on 25.10.2018 at Sl.No.71 insofar as the subjects relating to the petitioners herein are concerned.
2. The petitioners are claiming to be the existing stage carriage operators, operating their services in the District of Mysuru, Chamarajnagar, Mandya etc., It is submitted that on the revision filed by the KSRTC – respondent No.2 before the Tribunal, the same came to be allowed setting aside the orders passed by the STAT as far as petitioners herein are concerned. It appears that certain operators have challenged the common order passed by the Tribunal dated 02.06.2015 before this Court in W.P.Nos.31970- 78/2018 whereby the writ petitions were disposed of setting aside the order of the Tribunal insofar as the petitioners therein were concerned and the matter was remanded to the original authority – respondent No.1 to reconsider the application seeking renewal of permits within a time frame keeping open all the contentions of both the sides.
3. It transpires that the petitioners though were not the parties to the said writ petition proceedings, they directly approached respondent No.1 - authority seeking for the reconsideration of their renewal applications which came to be rejected in terms of the order of the authority dated 25.10.2018 observing that the original authority is governed by the decision of the Tribunal since the same has not been challenged, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed. However, the authority proceeded to reconsider the renewal applications filed by the petitioners who were before this Court in W.P.Nos.31970-78/2018 and granted renewal permits to the said operators. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged as aforesaid would submit that the petitioners, being similarly placed, are entitled to identical relief on parity in terms of the order of this Court dated 30.08.2018 in W.P.Nos.31970-78/2018.
5. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 - KSRTC would contend that the order of the RTA is appealable and the petitioners cannot rush to this Court circumventing the alternative statutory remedy available under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is further submitted that there is delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 02.06.2015.
6. The learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1 supports the orders impugned.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.
8. It is not in dispute that the similarly placed operators who had suffered common order dated 02.06.2015 of the Tribunal have approached this Court in W.P.Nos.31970-78/2018 and the same came to be disposed of, setting aside the order of the Tribunal insofar as operators/petitioners therein are concerned and remitting the matter to the respondent/original authority - RTA to reconsider the applications seeking renewal of permits. On parity, the petitioners are entitled to the similar relief. However, the petitioners are not being the parties to the said proceedings have directly approached the RTA seeking for reconsideration of their application for renewal of permits, which has been rightly rejected since the authorities are bound by the orders of the Tribunal.
9. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be sub- served in setting the aside the order of the Tribunal dated 02.06.2015 at Annexure - B as far as the petitioners herein are concerned and remitting the matter to the original authority - respondent No.1 to reconsider the renewal application in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. Since the parties are represented through their counsel, the parties are directed to appear before the authority – respondent No.1 on 15.04.2019 without expecting any notice from the respondent No.1 – authority. Respondent No.1 shall consider the applications of the petitioners seeking renewal of permit in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, these writ petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR