IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.20900 – 20902/2016 (MV) BETWEEN :
SRI.P.N.NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O LATE PALAVALLI ADHISHESHAIAH AGED 70 YEARS, NOW R/A SRI.VATHSANKITHA NILAYA SRI VIJAYALAKSHMI MOTORS PRASANTHA NAGAR BEHIND CHANDAANAHALLI ROAD DEVARAYAPATNA NEW EXTN.
TUMKUR-572104. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.LOKESH.R, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY I FLOOR, “A” BLOCK, TTMC COMPLEX BMTC BUILDINGS, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560027.
BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560027.
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIJAYA KUMAR A.PATIL, AGA FOR R1; SRI.HAREESH.T.BHANDARY, ADV FOR R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE TRIBUNAL DATED 01.04.2016 IN R.P.1163/2012 AND CONNECTED MARKED AT ANNEXURE-F TO THE ABOVE WRIT PETITIONS. ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) dated 01.04.2016 in R.P.No.1163/2012 marked at Annexure-F to the writ petitions, whereby the Tribunal has remanded the matter to the respondent No.1 to reconsider the same in accordance with law within a period of 90 days from the date of the order.
2. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that as per the route survey, there is no overlapping of the route. The petitioner is a saved operator. The Tribunal erred in not considering the grant of permit made by the first respondent/Authority under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in public convenience as per the inter-state agreement route Sl.No.133 between the Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh which is exclusively allotted for the operators of Karnataka and not for State Transport Undertakings.
3. Learned counsel Sri.Hareesh T.Bhandary, appearing for the respondent No.2 would contend that the route in question overlaps Andhra Pradesh scheme as well as the Bengaluru Scheme. The Authority wrongly relied upon by a joint route survey dated 21.10.2011 while issuing the permit. Indeed, the Authority ought to have secured a fresh route survey. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Authority to reconsider the same in accordance with law and as such the same do not call for any interference by this Court.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record, it is evident that the dispute regarding overlapping of the route in question has to be ascertained only after conducting a fresh joint route survey. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Authority to reconsider the same and to pass appropriate orders, which cannot be found fault with.
5. However, by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court and pursuant to the permit issued by the Authorities, the petitioner is operating the services. Hence, till the orders are passed by the respondent No.1 in terms of the orders passed by the Tribunal in revision petition No.1163/2012 dated 01.04.2016, the petitioner shall operate the services.
6. The respondent No.1 shall pass the orders in compliance with the orders passed by the Tribunal as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the orders after hearing the respective parties.
The writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the above.
Sd/- JUDGE NC