IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NOS. 35204 – 35207/2018 (MV) BETWEEN KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 027 BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER (BY SRI.HAREESH BHANDARY.T, ADVOCATE) AND 1. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY T.T.M.C., BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, ‘A’ BLOCK, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027 BY ITS SECRETARY 2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT & SECRETARY, KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY T.T.M.C., BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, ‘A’ BLOCK, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027 3. SRI.RAGHUPATHI GOWDA S/O. LATE RAME GOWDA, MAJOR, DOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 136 ... PETITIONER 4. SRI.SARDAR PASHA S/O.MOHAMMED AMEER JAN, MAJOR, OPP DARGA HAZARTH BABA HYDERALI, K G F ROAD, MULBAGAL, KOLAR DISTRICT, BENGALURU – 563 131 5. SRI.SHAIK SHAFIULLA S/O.SHAIK DAWOOD SAHEB, MAJOR, NO.154, 6TH CROSS, PILLANNA GARDEN, TENNERY ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 045 6. SMT.REHANA BEGUM W/O. SRI. SHAIK SHAFIULLA, MAJOR, NO.8, OLD NO.33, 11TH CROSS, SHAMPUR MAIN ROAD, R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 032 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.E.NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5 & 6; SRI.V.SHIVAREDDY, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI.B.R.S.GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 & 4; SRI.C.M.S.SHARIFF, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & 4) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AUTHORITY DATED 22.03.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE –M, CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE – L DATED 17.02.2018 IN R.P.NO.44-54 & 56-63 & 66 TO 67/2018 AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The grievance of the petitioner is against the order dated 22.03.2018 at Annexure-M, which the learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri.V.Shivareddy, prima facie says to be an appealable order under the provisions of Section 90 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no regular Presiding Officer in the Appellate Tribunal, there is no impediment for entertaining these writ petitions on merit.
3. In reply, the learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri.V.Shivareddy, submits that the Appellate Tribunal is functioning although by way of some adhoc arrangement and therefore, if the petitioner files an appeal, there would be no much impediment for consideration of that appeal on merits. There is force in the submission.
4. In view of the above, these writ petitions are disposed off; the petitioner is at liberty to file statutory appeal/s revision petition/s within a period of two weeks challenging the order impugned herein; if such an appeal/s is/are filed, accordingly the learned Presiding Officer of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, shall take up the matters for consideration of the interim relief, if any, and pass orders on the same within an outer limit of four weeks; further, the said Tribunal is directed to take up petitioner’s appeal/s revision petition/s on merit within an outer limit of three months.
All contentions are kept open; it is needless to mention that in considering the issue of delegation, period spent before this Court shall be discounted.
Sd/- JUDGE KPS KSDJ:
11.01.2019 W.P.Nos.35204-35207/2018 ORDER ON FOR BEING SPOKEN TO These matters having been moved in Being Spoken To was argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking continuation of the interim relief that was granted pendente lite. The learned counsel for the petitioner passionately presses into service, paragraph No.7 of judgment dated 23.10.2018 made by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4299/2013(MV) in support of his contention that the transport authorities have been abusing both the process of law and of the Court and therefore, this finding being on record, there is no reason to discontinue or deny the interim relief granted earlier till after petitioner’s application for interim relief in the contemplated Revision is taken up.
2. Learned Senior Advocate Sri.P.S.Rajagopal appearing for the advocate on record for the respondent opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner contending that a finding recorded in a particular matter is a finding inter parte and that the same cannot be treated as a gospel observation in all other cases in the absence of any independent material to the contrary, on record. He also submits that in Administrative Law, there is difference between abuse of process of law or of Court, and an arrogation to oneself the power which otherwise is not vested with the authority and that the case arguably may fall within the later which can be a ground for invoking the Revision jurisdiction. He also places on record through a memo dated 10.01.2019 the Circular note No.3/05-06 dated 14.11.2005 which at internal page No.3 mentions at Sl.No.vi and viii the powers delegated. However, this Court still not express any opinion since the parties are relegated to the revisional authority.
3. There is a certain legal difference between a Review and ‘Being Spoken To’ which this Court cannot ignore; this being in the later category, the interference is still more restricted.
4. In view of the same, no relief as sought for can be granted, here. However, this order shall not come in the way of the revisional authority which is expected to take up petitioner’s application for interim relief at the earliest point of time in the contemplated revision.
Sd/- JUDGE KPS