\IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.No.13542/2017 (MV) BETWEEN :
SANDEEP S/O YOGEENDRANATH, AGE 42 YEARS, MONALISA, AJJARAKAD, UDUPI - 576 101. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI M.E.NAGESH, ADV.) AND :
1. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, RAJATHADRI, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 104.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R-1; SRI H.M.MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R-2.) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, UDUPI DATED 29.08.2016 IN SUBJECT NO.127/2013-14/16-17 AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND THAT OF THE ORDER OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 14.12.2016 IN R.P.NO.244/2016 ASPER ANNXURE-D.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The Petitioner is the existing stage carriage operator, operating his three city services under there different permits for the route Udupi to Perampalli and back and Udupi to Moodabelle via Manipal etc.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the timings assigned by the Respondent No.1 as per order dated 29.8.2016 and confirmed by the Tribunal in Revision Petition No.244/2016 [DD-14.12.2016].
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the orders impugned herein, would contend that no cogent reasons are assigned by the Respondent No.1 while assigning the timings, more particularly, when objections were raised by the petitioner to the proposed timings. The order passed by the Respondent No.1 is a non speaking order. The Tribunal grossly erred in affirming the same in not considering the material fact that both the services of the petitioner as well as of the KSRTC having common route only at the fag end, the other terminal point for both the services are different to the extent of the distance of half kilometer. It is further submitted that as per the comparative timings, for two trips-one minute interval, and for one trip-four minutes interval is assigned which would establish that the same is not assigned in a fair and equitable manner. The petitioner being the oldest operator on the route in question, priority has to be given to the petitioner while assigning the timings.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 supporting the impugned orders would submit that the Respondent No.1 after considering the objections of the sector operators operating the services in the route in question, has passed the order assigning the timings. The Respondent No.1 has assigned the reasons for fixing the timings. It is discernible from the order that in Udupi city, private operators are operating the services for every minute. It is unrealistic to expect a large interval of time between the two operators in the said city. Considering the overall view, the Respondent No.1 assigned the timings which has been rightly upheld by the Tribunal and the same do not call for any interference by this Court.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for Respondent No.1 supporting the arguments of the Respondent No.2, submits that the Authority has passed a speaking order considering the objections of the sector operators of the route in question.
6. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. The comparative chart of the timings assigned by the Respondent No.1 to the petitioner as well as to the Respondent No.2 is as under:
8. A perusal of the comparative chart makes it clear that the time gap between the two operators is from one minute to 9 minutes. The Respondent No.1 while considering the objections raised by the petitioner to the proposed timings, along with the objections of the other sector operators, has assigned the timings keeping in mind the convenience of the travelling public as well as of the operators. It is not in dispute that in Udupi city, number of services are operating. The petitioner himself is having three permits in the said route in question. In such circumstances, it is nay impossible for the Authority to assign the timings with large time interval. The main ground urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in challenging the orders impugned herein is that the Authority failed to assign the reasons for maintaining one minute to nine minutes between the services of the petitioner and the Respondent No.2. This argument do not inspire any credence for the reason that the Respondent No.1 has explained the circumstances under which the timings are assigned to the petitioner as well as to the Respondent No.2, considering the service operators operating the services in Udupi city area. Given the circumstances, no irregularity or infirmity can be found in the orders passed by the Tribunal upholding the orders of the Respondent No.1.
Writ Petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/- JUDGE AN/-