In the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore Dated This the 18 Th Day of July 2013 Before the Hon’Ble Mr

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 18 TH DAY OF JULY 2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION Nos. 7801-7804/2013 (MV) BETWEEN: 1. SESHAPPA SHETTY S/O KORAGAPPA SHETTY AGE 58 YEARS, VISHMITHA COMPOUND JAPPINAMOGARU, MANGALORE 2. P.M. IQBAL S/O LATE HAJI P.M. MOHAMMED AGE 40 YEARS, PARTHIPADY HOUSE, MANJANADY VILLAGE, KINYA POST, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT. 3. A.M. IBRAHIM S/O P.H. MOHIDDIN KUNHI AGE 46 YEARS MONTEPADAVU NEW HOUSE, MANGALANTHI, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT. 4. VIVEK SHETTY S/O N. VITTAL SHETTY AGE 52 YEARS, NAGARIGUTTU HOUSE, SAJI PAMOODA, BANTWAL, D.K.DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (By Sri M.E.NAGESH, ADVOCATE) 2 AND: 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-01 BY ITS SECRETARY 2. DIWAKAR SHETTY S/O SUNDAR SHETTY MADUR GUTHU KOTEKAR POST, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (By Sri T.K.VEDAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R1 SRI H.B. NAGARAJA, ADV. R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN APPEAL NO.1228/2011 DT. 13.12.2012 VIDE ANEX-B. ETC., THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER First petitioner is the holder of stage carriage permit valid upto 22.06.2014 for the route Era to Mangalore and back via., Mudipu, Manjanady, Deralakatte, Thokkottu, Kankanady 4 RTS. Second petitioner is the holder of stage carriage permit valid upto 24.02.2017 for the route Era to Mangalore via Mudipu, Manjanady, Thokkottu, Kankanady 4 RTS. Third petitioner is the holder of stage carriage permit valid upto 07.02.2014 for the route Hoovuhakuva Kallu to 3 State Bank via., Manjanady, Thokkottu, Kankanady and the fourth petitioner is the holder of stage carriage permit valid upto 06.10.2013 for the route B.C. Road to Mangalore via., Mudipu, Manjanady, Derlakatte 3 RTS. 2. Second respondent had been granted a stage carriage permit for the route State Bank to Devipura and back via., Kankanady, Thokkottu, Thalapady, etc. Variation of the permit was granted and the same was challenged by the first petitioner before the KSTAT. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the variation permit on the ground that the permit violates District Magistrate’s Notification and the matter was remanded to the KSTA. After remand, the KSTA in its meeting dated 07.01.2008 considered the matter and condensed the route which overlapped the District Magistrate’s notification and restored the permit to the old position i.e., from Kankanady to Devipura and back 6 RTS. 3. Second respondent questioned the said order in R.P.No.72/2008 on the file of the Appellate Tribunal and same was dismissed. Thereafter, W.P.No.7708/2008 was 4 filed, which came to be dismissed on 09.06.2008. W.A.No.1063/2008 filed was dismissed on 26.11.2008 with an observation that the appellant will not be precluded from seeking benefit under Section 80 (3) (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereunder, it is entitled for variation not exceeding 24 kms. Following the said observations, the second respondent filed an application for variation of condition of permit and the same was rejected on 23.06.2011, which was assailed in appeal No.956/2010 before the Tribunal. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the KSTA for reconsideration after obtaining route survey. The survey route report discloses the extension of trip for a distance of 11.7 kms and the proposed extension being 18.1 kms. The KSTA having considered the matter, rejected the application of second respondent vide order dated 11.11.2011 at Annexure-A. Said order was questioned by the second respondent herein in appeal No. 1228/11. The Tribunal having granted the variation of the route, this writ petition has been filed. 4. Heard Sri M.E.Nagesh, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Sri. T.K. Vedamurthy, learned HCGP for the first 5 respondent, and Sri H.B.Nagaraja, learned Advocate for the second respondent and perused the impugned order. 5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that, except the narration of the case of the appellant before it, the Tribunal has not considered the case in accordance with law. On a subjective satisfaction, the appellant was granted variation for the route i.e., from Thokkottu to Mudipu and back. The Tribunal has not considered the matter in the correct perspective and there is arbitrariness. 6. The Tribunal while passing the impugned order has not kept in view the provision under Section 80 (3) of the Act, more particularly the second proviso therein. Since, impugned order is barest of reasons, the same is vitiated and hence, is unsustainable. O R D E R i. Writ petition is allowed and the impugned order as at Annexure-B is quashed. ii. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for consideration afresh in accordance with law. 6 iii. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 27.07.2013 and receive further orders. iv. The Tribunal is directed to decide the matter expeditiously and before 31.08.2013. Till the Tribunal decides the case, the second respondent is entitled to operate service on the route in question. Contentions of both the parties are left open. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE DR .

Load more