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.55596/2016 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI M.PRAKASHA RAO S/O LATE N.MUNI RAO AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, LAKSHMI NARAYANA MOTOR SERVICE, NO.5, CUBBONPET MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B.R.SUNDARARAJA GUPTA, ADV.) AND:
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY TUMAKURU-572 101 BY ITS SECRETARY 2. SRI R.PANDURANGA S/O LATE RAMAIAH, BUS OPERATOR, NO.5, CUBBONPET 2ND CROSS, BENGALURU-560 002.
3. THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI SIDDANANJAIAH, ADV. FOR C/R-2; SRI B.PALAKSHAIAH, ADV. FOR R-3.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION OF R-1 PASSED IN SUBJECT NO.4/2013-14 DATED 04.03.2014 AT ANNEXURE-C AND THE ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN APPEAL NO.320/2014 DATED 19.01.2016 AT ANNEXURE-H.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R With the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage itself.
2. The petitioner has challenged the resolution of respondent No.1 passed in Subject No.4/2013-14 dated 04.03.2014 as well as the order of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal ['Tribunal' for short] passed in Appeal No.320/2014 dated 19.01.2016 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
3. The petitioner claiming to be a transferee of stage carriage permit bearing No.P.St.S.No.11/2000-01 valid up to 07.05.2010 authorised to operate on the route between P.N.Halli and G.D.Palya and Back and G.D.Palya to Channapatna and back. In relation to the said permit, the petitioner filed an application for renewal of permit under Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 76 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The Secretary of the respondent No.1 renewed the permit in question for a period of five years up to 07.05.2015. Against the renewal of the permit, the respondent No.2 preferred Revision Petition No.382/2011 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by an order dated 21.05.2011, set aside the renewal granted by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority and directed the Regional Transport Authority to re-consider the renewal application in accordance with law.
4. It appears, the respondent No.1 directed the petitioner to stop the operation of the service. Against the notice issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, the petitioner filed W.P.No.37237/2013 and by virtue of interim order granted by this Court, he was operating in the routes in question. Subsequently an endorsement was issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority withdrawing the said notice with an observation that the renewal application shall be considered in the next meeting. However, the renewal application of the petitioner was rejected solely on the ground that no satisfactory reasons are assigned to condone the delay in the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority held on 04.03.2014. The petitioner preferred an appeal No.320/2014 against the order of the Regional Transport Authority before the Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the same. Against which, the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court in W.P.Nos.21689/2014 and 34983/2014 which came to be remanded to the Tribunal. On remand, appeal came to be dismissed. Hence, W.P.No.1796/2015 was filed. This Court observing that the reasons given for condonation of delay in filing the renewal application requires to be reconsidered by the tribunal disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and remanded the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by an order dated 19.01.2016, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this writ petition.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perusing the material on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has approached this Court in W.P.No.1796/2015 mainly on the ground that the rejection of the application for condonation of delay by the Regional Transport Authority is not in accordance with law, as satisfactory explanations was offered by the petitioner for condoning the delay. Considering the said aspect, this Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Surprisingly, subsequent to the remand, the petitioner has filed the application for condonation of delay before the Tribunal in appeal proceedings of 320/2014.
6. The Tribunal analyzing the conduct of the petitioner in as much as approaching the Court not with clean hands as well as not being satisfied by the explanation offered by the petitioner for condoning the inordinate delay in considering the application for renewal of the permit, rejected the appeal. The Tribunal being the last fact finding authority, the factual aspects are being profusely analyzed in arriving at a decision as far as non-filing of application for condonation of delay at the time of filing of W.P.No.1796/2015 and misleading the factual aspects before this Court.
7. It is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that application for condonation of delay was filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal only subsequent to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1796/2015 and the same is asserted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
In such circumstances, there is no reasons for this Court to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the Tribunal.
Writ petition is bereft of merits and accordingly stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.