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.33524/2019 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI S.GNANENDRA S/O SRIRAMALU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS BUS OPERATOR No.192, TANK BUND ROAD ITTIGEGUD, INDIRANAGAR MYSORE-570010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI A.S.PARASARA KUMAR, ADV.) AND:
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY OPP: SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE MYSORE DISTRICT-570010 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNTAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHIVA PRABHU S. H IREMATH, AGA. FOR R-1; SRI HAREESH BHANDARY.T, ADV. FOR R-2.) 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.149/2014 DATED 02.06.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-G; AND ETC., 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.149/2014 dated 02.06.2015.
2. The petitioner claims to be the saved permit holder under the notification dated 28.09.2017 with the services in operation since from 1998 on the route Jellipalya to Mysore and back vide permit No.14/98-99. It is submitted that the last renewal was made by the respondent No.1 on 06.12.2013. Revision petitions were filed by the respondent No.2 before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (‘Tribunal’ for short) which came to be disposed of by the order impugned along with batch of matters. This Court in W.P.Nos.27038-27044/2018 [D.D 12.03.2019] considering the notification dated 07.03.2019, a new Comprehensive Area Scheme for the entire State of Karnataka issued by the Government of Karnataka in terms of Sub-section [3] of Section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has set aside the orders passed in R.P.No.112/2014 and other allied matters which arises from the same batch, the common order passed by the Tribunal impugned herein.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the petitioner has filed Appeal No.77/2019 before the Tribunal challenging the order dated 25.10.2018 whereby the application for renewal of permit No.14-98-99 has been rejected based on the order dated 02.06.2015. Hence, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 02.06.2015 relating to the cancellation of the renewal for the period 2013-2018 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 period 2013-2018 would come in the way of adjudication of the challenge made to the rejection of renewal of permit for the period 2018- 2023 by the Tribunal.
5. The apprehension of the petitioner can be allayed with, directing the Tribunal to consider the Appeal No.77/2019 filed by the petitioner in accordance with law, keeping in mind the notification dated 28.09.2017 and 07.03.2019 without being influenced by the impugned order dated 02.06.2015. Ordered accordingly.
Writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.
NC.
Sd/- JUDGE