IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.49483/2019 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI G.K.NEELAKANTA S/O SRI KANDESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BUS OPERATOR, NO.16, 1ST ‘A’ CROSS 6TH C MAIN, J.P.NAGAR, 7TH PHASE, BANGALORE-560078 …PETITIONER (BY SRI A.S.PARASARA KUMAR, ADV.) AND:
1 . THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BANGALROE RURAL, B.D.A. COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560034 REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN 2 . THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BANGALORE RURAL, B.D.A. COMPLEX KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560034 3 . THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560027 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI HARISH BHANDARY T., ADV. FOR R-3.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN R.P.NO.1202/2012 DATED 25.06.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal [‘Tribunal’ for short] in R.P.No.1202/2012 dated 25.06.2015.
2. The petitioner claims to be the saved permit holder under the notification dated 07.03.2019 with the services in operation from 1998 on the route Jigala Cross to Bangalore and back vide permit No.14/07-08. It is submitted that revision petition was filed by the respondent No.3 before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (‘Tribunal’ for short) which came to be disposed of by the order impugned dated 25.06.2015 setting aside the renewal of permit.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 would submit that the petitioner has filed Appeal No.116/2019 before the Tribunal challenging the order dated 30.01.2019 whereby the application for renewal of permit No.14/07-08 has been rejected based on the order dated 25.06.2015. Hence, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner relating to the cancellation of the renewal of permit for the earlier periods cannot be entertained at this stage.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. It is the apprehension of the petitioner that the cancellation of the renewal of permit of the petitioner during the earlier periods would come in the way of adjudication of the challenge made to the rejection of renewal of permit for the subsequent periods.
5. The apprehension of the petitioner can be allayed with, directing the Tribunal to consider the pending Appeal No.116/2019 filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law, keeping in mind the notifications dated 28.09.2017 and 07.03.2019 without being influenced by the impugned order at Annexure-E dated 26.05.2015. Ordered accordingly.
Writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.