IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.2637 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN:
THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION K. H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU -560 027 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY DAVANAGERE REGION KONDAJJI ROAD DAVANAGERE-577 003 BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE SECRETARY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY DAVANAGERE REGION KONDAJJI ROAD DAVANAGERE-577 003.
3. SRI ABDUL AZEEM SON OF LATE IMAM SAB AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS PROP.MIZRA TRANSPORT BILICHODU JAGALURU(TALUK) DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 003.
... RESPONDENTS THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 23.07.2018 IN WRIT PETITION No.12784 OF 2018 [MV] CONSEQUENTLY ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION ON ITS ENTIRETY AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 23.7.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12784 of 2018 by which, the respondent No.1 is directed to consider renewal application of the petitioner in the light of the notification dated 28.09.2017, the third respondent in the writ petition is in appeal.
2. The petitioner, a Stage Carriage Permit holder filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 22.11.2011 passed by the first respondent rejecting his application for renewal of permit vide Annexure-B and order dated 19.06.2012 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal vide Annexure-E. It is stated that the petitioner was granted stage carriage permit vide resolution dated 26.08.1998 in respect of the route Ramaghatta to Davanagere and back. The said permit was renewed and was valid till 07.05.2011. The petitioner had filed an application for renewal of permit on 15.03.2011 for the period from 08.05.2011 to 07.05.2016, before respondent No.1-Regional Transport Authority. By resolution and order dated 17.10.2011, it was held that the permit overlapped with the notified route of Bellary scheme and it was not saved as per modified scheme dated 24.07.2003. The petitioner filed Appeal No.1286 of 2011 before the Tribunal against the rejection of his request for renewal of permit. The Tribunal by order dated 19.06.2012 dismissed the appeal, but permitted the petitioner to operate till the matter in W.P.No.15213 of 2012 is decided. The said writ petition culminated in Writ Appeal No.5590 of 2012 which was disposed off on 21.11.2012 directing the authorities to consider the application of the petitioner therein for renewal of permit on paying necessary arrears of taxes and dues. It is stated that the State Government issued notification dated 28.09.2017 modifying the Bellary scheme in which, permit holders operating as on 14.01.2002 were saved and exempted. In the light of the said notification, the petitioner approached this Court challenging both orders rejecting his renewal application as well as the order passed by the Tribunal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the petitioner was not a saved operator under notification dated 28.09.2017, hence the learned Single Judge could not have directed the first respondent to consider the renewal application.
5. The learned Single Judge on hearing the parties directed respondent No.1 to consider the application of the petitioner for renewal in the light of the notification dated 28.09.2017. The learned Single Judge taking note of the notification dated 28.09.2017 by which the Bellary scheme was modified, wherein the permits granted and issued, operating as on 14.01.2002 were saved and exempted, directed the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with notification dated 28.09.2017. Such direction of the learned Single Judge would not harm the appellant herein as the petitioner would get an opportunity before the authorities to vent his grievance. It is for the petitioner to demonstrate before the first respondent that he is a saved operator and he is entitled for the benefit of notification dated 28.09.2017. The notification modifying the Bellary Scheme has saved permits existing and operating as on 14.01.2002. Moreover it would be subject to payment of arrears and current taxes and other dues. We see no error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and no ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms