IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.12194/2019 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI K.JAYARAM S/O BUNDE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.1172, 2ND CROSS, CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGAR, MANDYA ... PETITIONER [BY SRI A.SRIKANTH, ADV.] AND:
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MYSURU-570001, BY ITS SECRETARY 2. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI HARISH BHANDARY, ADV. FOR R-2.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE 124/2014 ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN REVISION PETITION IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent No.1.
Learned counsel Sri. Harish Bhandary is permitted to accept notice for respondent No.2.
The petitioner has challenged the common order passed by the Tribunal in R.P.No.124/2014 dated 02.06.2015 as well as the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) in its meeting held on 25.10.2018 at Sl.No.71 insofar as the subject relating to the petitioner herein is concerned.
2. The petitioner is claiming to be the existing stage carriage operator, operating his services in the District of Chamarajnagar and Mandya etc., It is submitted that on the revision filed by the KSRTC – respondent No.2 before the Tribunal, the same came to be allowed setting aside the order passed by the STAT as far as petitioner herein is concerned. It appears that certain operators have challenged the common order passed by the Tribunal dated 02.06.2015 before this Court in W.P.Nos.31970-78/2018 whereby the writ petitions were disposed of setting aside the order of the Tribunal insofar as the petitioners therein were concerned and the matter was remanded to the original authority – respondent No.1 to reconsider the application seeking renewal of permits within a time frame keeping open all the contentions of both the sides.
3. It transpires that the petitioner though was not the party to the said writ petition proceedings, he directly approached respondent No.1 - authority seeking for the reconsideration of his renewal application which came to be rejected in terms of the order of the authority dated 25.10.2018 observing that the original authority is governed by the decision of the Tribunal since the same has not been challenged, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed. However, the authority proceeded to reconsider the renewal applications filed by the petitioners who were before this Court in W.P.Nos.31970-78/2018 and granted renewal permits to the said operators. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged as aforesaid would submit that the petitioner, being similarly placed, is entitled to identical relief on parity in terms of the order of this Court dated 30.08.2018 in W.P.Nos.31970-78/2018.
5. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 - KSRTC would contend that the order of the RTA is appealable and the petitioner cannot rush to this Court circumventing the alternative statutory remedy available under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is further submitted that there is delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 02.06.2015.
6. The learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1 supports the orders impugned.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.
8. It is not in dispute that the similarly placed operators who had suffered common order dated 02.06.2015 of the Tribunal have approached this Court in W.P.Nos.31970-78/2018 and the same came to be disposed of, setting aside the order of the Tribunal insofar as operators/petitioners therein are concerned and remitting the matter to the respondent/original authority - RTA to reconsider the applications seeking renewal of permits. On parity, the petitioner is entitled to the similar relief. However, the petitioner not being the party to the said proceedings has directly approached the RTA seeking for reconsideration of his application for renewal of permits, which has been rightly rejected since the authorities are bound by the orders of the Tribunal.
9. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be sub- served in setting the aside the order of the Tribunal dated 02.06.2015 at Annexure - B as far as the petitioner herein is concerned and remitting the matter to the original authority - respondent No.1 to reconsider the renewal application in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. Since the parties are represented through their counsel, the parties are directed to appear before the authority – respondent No.1 on 15.04.2019 without expecting any notice from the respondent No.1 – authority. Respondent No.1 shall consider the application of the petitioner seeking renewal of permit in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR