IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.50764-50765/2017 (MV) BETWEEN:
M/S SHIRDI SAI ENTERPRISES REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER S RADHESH KUMAR AGE 64 YEARS S/O LAKSHMINARAYAN, NO.11-1-68 ARAVINDNAGAR, ANANTHAPUR ANDHRAPRADESH STATE. …PETITIONER [BY SRI. M.E.NAGESH, ADV.] AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD BENGALURU-27 4. THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU-560027 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 5. THE STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO TRANSPORT VIJAYAWADA ANDHRAPRADESH STATE. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. B.J. ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 RO R3 SRI. HARISH BHANDARY.T, ADV FOR R4 ] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION DATED 28.9.2017 AT ANNEX-J IN SO FAR AS IT EXCLUDES THE PERMIT HOLDERS OBTAINED PERMITS / ADDITIONAL TRIPS ON INTER-STATE ROUTES AFTER 14.1.2002 AS PER THE INTER-STATE AGREEMENT DATED 1.9.1975 AND ITS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH ARE SAVED;
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Though the petitioner has challenged the Government notification dated 28.09.2017 in so far as it excludes the permit holders obtained permits/additional trips on inter-state routes after 14.01.2002 as per inter- state agreement dated 01.09.1975 and its supplemental agreements entered into between the State of Karnataka and State of Andhrapradesh being saved, the learned counsel appearing for the parties submit ad idem that renewal has been granted to the petitioner’s permit subsequent to filing of the writ petitions and is operating in the routes assigned and in view of the subsequent developments, these writ petitions do not survive for consideration.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petitions are rendered infructuous. In the result, writ petitions stand dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.