Karnataka High Court
Saleem Khan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 27 February, 2013
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H.N.Nagamohan Das
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS
WRIT PETITION NO:21638/2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SALEEM KHAN
S/O KAREEM KHAN
AGE 52 YEARS
VEELI RAMAN KOIL STREET
VIVEKNAGAR
BANGALORE-560 047
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.E. NAGESH, ADV,)
AND:
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT
AUTHORITY, KOLAR
BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD
BANGALORE-27
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY, ADV., FOR R2
SRI. T.K. VEDAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R1)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY RTA KOLAR THE R1 ON
19.12.2011 PASSED IN SUBJECT NO.18(X)/96-97 VIDE
ANNX-G AND THAT OF THAT OR THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL
NO.209/12 PASSED ON 30.4.12 VIDE ANNX-H AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the resolution dated 19.12.2011, Annexure -G and the order dated 30.04.2012 in Appeal No.209/2012, passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal as per Annexure-H.
2. The petitioner was the holder of permit on the route from Mulbagal to Bangalore and back. The Tribunal in Appeal No.858/1997, set aside the permit granted in favour of the petitioner. The order of the Tribunal came to be 3 confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.31791/2002. Before this Court, the petitioner made submission that he has filed an application dated 14.05.2001 suggesting alternative route to avoid over lapping of the nationalized route. This court while dismissing W.P.No.31791/2002, directed the respondent No.1 to consider the application of the petitioner for alternative route. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 had taken up the application of the petitioner dated 14.05.2001 and found that it was not an application for alternative route but the same was for renewal of the permit granted earlier. Accordingly, under the impugned resolution Annexure-G, the respondent No.1 rejected the application for renewal.
3. Aggrieved by this resolution, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal in Appeal No.209/2012. Under the impugned order Annexure - H, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the resolution passed by the respondent No.1. Hence this writ petition.
4. Heard arguments on both side and perused the entire writ petition.
4
5. The permit granted in favour of the petitioner came to be set aside by the Tribunal in Appeal No.858/1997. Subsequently, this Court in W.P.No.31791/2002 confirmed the order of the Tribunal. The order of this Court had become final. When the permit granted in favour of the petitioner is set aside, the question of renewal of the same will not arise.
6. What was submitted before this Court in W.P.No.31791/2002, was that, the petitioner made an application suggesting alternative route to avoid any over lapping of the Nationalized Route. Therefore, this Court directed the respondent No.1 to consider the application of the petitioner dated 14.05.2001 for alternative route. The respondent No.1 on noticing that the application of the petitioner dated 14.05.2001 was not for alternative route. Therefore, the question of considering the request of the petitioner for alternative route in the absence of any such application will not arise. Therefore, the impugned order at Annexures-G and H are in accordance with law. I find no justifiable ground to interfere.
5
Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Hj*