IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.16028 - 16029/2015 (MV) BETWEEN :
SRI V LOGANATHAN S/O VENKATARAMAN.D AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT D.NO.6-63-2, SAAD MANSION NEAR KANTHERI DOOMVATHI TEMPLE SURATHKAL, MANGALORE. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI A.S.PARASARA KUMAR, ADV) AND :
1. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE-27. REP BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE-27.
BY IS 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 QUASH THE ORDERS OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE DATED 13.02.2015 MADE IN RP.NO.1177/2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-G, AND THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2015 MADE IN RP.NO.1179/2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-H. ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the order of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru dated 13.02.2015 at Annexure-G and the order dated 13.02.2015 at Annexure-H to the writ petition.
2. The petitioner is the holder of two stage carriage permits for the route Trichur to N.R.Pura. The said two permits are interstate grant and issued prior to the declaration of the law in Ashwani Kumar and another V/s. Regional TransportAuthority Bikaner and another ((1998) 8 SCC 364). The petitioner filed an application based on the said Judgment, for the variation of the route, so as to curtail the operation of the route lying in the portion of Kerala, to make them intra-state permit. The first respondent considered the said application and granted the curtailment of the portion of the route as sought for. Being aggrieved, the second respondent preferred revision petitions before the Tribunal, which came to be allowed, setting aside the curtailment of routes and also the renewal of permit granted by the first respondent. Hence, these petitions.
3. Heard the learned counsel Sri.A.S.Parasara Kumar, appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Hareesh.T.Bhandary, appearing for the respondent No.2 and also Learned AGA for the respondent No.1.
4. The Tribunal proceeded on the ground that the petitioner has not filed any application seeking for curtailment of the routes. However, it was observed that the first respondent had no jurisdiction to curtail the routes of inter-state permit and set aside the curtailment of routes made by the first respondent. It is significant to note that the permit has expired on 17.01.2017. It is mandatory for the petitioner to move an application for renewal of the permit.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner shall file an application before the RTA Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, for renewal of the permit. If such an application is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the RTA, Mangalore in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
The respondent No.1 shall send the records to the RTA forthwith.
The writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the above.
Sd/- JUDGE NC