IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.27038 – 27044/2018 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. SRI M.K.PONNUSWAMY S/O KOLANDIAH SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS PROP: N.K.P. SERVICE, PALANIKUTTI GARDEN, DOLLIPURA, ATHIGULIPURA POST, CHAMARAJANAGARA-571 313 (PERMIT TRANSFERRED FROM SRI V.SENDHIL KUMAR) 2. SRI VENKATASWAMY S/O SRI RAJU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS BUS OPERATOR, NO.7/11, MAHADESHWARA COLLEGE ROAD, KOLLEGAL-571 313 3. SRI R.PARI S/O M.RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS PROP: VIJAYALAKSHMI MOTORS, CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE STREET, TUMKUR-572 101 4. SRI S.GNANENDRA S/O SRIRAMALU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS BUS OPERATOR, NO.192, TANK BUND ROAD, ITTIGEGUD, INDIRANAGAR, MYSORE-570 010. ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI A.S.PARASARA KUMAR, ADV.] AND:
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, OPP: SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE, MYSORE DISTRICT, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI B.PALAKSHAIAH, ADV. FOR R-2.] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN R.P.Nos.112/2014 & 128/2014, 137/2014, 210/2014, 218/2014, 219/2014, 220/2014 DATED 02.06.2015 IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENTS DATED 06.12.2013 PASSED IN SUB.NO.12/12-13 VIDE ANNEXURE-M.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the Tribunal in R.P.Nos.112/2014, 128/2014, 137/2014, 210/2014, 218/2014, 219/2014 and 220/2014 dated 02.06.2015 in setting aside the orders passed by respondent No.1 dated 06.12.2013 in Sub.No.12/12-13.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the parties submit ad-idem that the subject matter of these writ petitions is similar to the one considered in W.P.No.23907/2018 (MV), disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.07.2018, whereby this Court directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider the renewal application of the petitioner in the light of the notification dated 28.09.2017. A copy thereon is placed on record.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the Rule itself having been amended vide Notification dated 27.07.2018, the case of the petitioners is strengthened. This assertion is not disputed by the learned counsel for the other side.
4. It is further submitted that by the Notification dated 07.03.2019, a new Comprehensive Area Scheme for the entire State of Karnataka has been issued by the Government of Karnataka in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 whereby the existing permits with the trips and vehicles to whom permits are granted and issued by transport authorities, in operation as on 18.12.2014, and also pending renewal to operate their services on inter-State, intra-State, inter-district and intra-district routes notwithstanding anything contained in any of the approved schemes as well as the existing permits in operation with trips and vehicles of the private stage carriage operators, who are operating on non monopoly routes/area as on 24.03.2018 and the existing permits in operation according to notification dated 28.09.2017 issued by the Government of Karnataka subject to decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka are saved. The said Notification also supports the case of the petitioners.
5. For the aforegoing reasons, these writ petitions stand disposed of setting aside the impugned order at Annexure–M dated 02.06.2015. The proceedings are restored to the file of respondent No.1 – Regional Transport Authority, Mysore, to consider the petitioners’ applications for renewal of stage carriage permit in accordance with law.
6. Respondent No.1 shall conduct joint survey of the routes in question and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing all the parties concerned, in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than twelve weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
7. It is needless to observe that the petitioners shall not operate on the routes concerned until the decision is taken by respondent No.1 - authority.
In view of disposal of the writ petitions, pending I.A. does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
PMR Sd/- JUDGE