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 No.9085/2019 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI G.A.SANAULLA S/O G.AMANULLA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO.89, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, KHUTUB SHAHI SHA NAGAR, KOLAR-563101. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI C.M.S.SHARIFF, ADV.] AND:
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BENGALRUU RURAL, BDA COMPLEX KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560034 BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION , K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. SMT.REHANA BEGUM W/O SHAIK SHAFIULLA NO.33, 11TH CROSS, SHOMPURA MAIN ROAD, NEXT TO ASHRAFIYA MASAJID, R.T. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI B.J.ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R-1; SRI B.PALAKSHAIAH, ADV. FOR R-2; SRI M.E.NAGESH, ADV. FOR C/R-3.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 IN VIDE SERIAL NO.12 SUBJECT NO.49/2018-2019 DATED 30.01.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-P RESPECTIVELY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 - authority has rejected the renewal application of the petitioner based on the order dated 26.05.2000 of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. Inviting attention of this Court to the petitions filed by the respondent No.3 before the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the petitoner would contend that it was the common resolution passed in Subject Nos.49 to 52/99-00 that was challenged before the Tribunal with respect to the Subject Nos.49, 50, 51/99-00. No challenge was made to the resolution of Subject No.52/99-00 pertaining to the petitioner herein. However, the authority without applying the mind, rejected the renewal application of the petitioner. Accordingly, seeks for setting aside the order of the respondent No.1 - authority.
3. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 fairly submitted that in view of the Notifications dated 28.09.2017 as well as 07.03.2019 issued by the Government of Karnataka, the permit of the petitioner, if saved, ought to be examined and adjudicated by respondent No.1 - authority. Hence, the writ petition requires to be allowed and remanded to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration.
4. The learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 does not dispute the same. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the permit of the petitioner is not saved under the Notification dated 28.09.2017. However, in view of the subsequent Notification dated 07.03.2019, the permit of the petitioner appears to be saved and if so, the matter has to be adjudicated by respondent No.1 - authority.
5. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met in setting aside the order impugned dated 30.01.2019 passed in Subject No.49/2018-19 at Annexure – P to the writ petition relating to the permit No.83/1999-2000 for the route Manchinabele to Amitkal and Back covered by vehicle No.KA-07/A-2664 and remitting the matter to respondent No.1 - authority for fresh consideration. Ordered accordingly.
6. Respondent No.1 - authority shall consider the matter afresh in the light of the Notifications referred to above and pass appropriate orders after hearing the concerned parties in accordance with law, in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
Till the decision is taken by respondent No.1 - authority, the petitioner shall not operate in the route in question.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
In view of the disposal of the writ petition, pending I.A. also stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR