Karnataka High Court
Sri K N Srinivasa Reddy S/O Sri K S ... vs The Karnataka State Transport on 15 February, 2013
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H.N.Nagamohan Das
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS
WRIT PETITION NO.13314/2011 (MV)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.12584/2011 (MV)
IN WP NO.13314/2011
BETWEEN:
SRI K.N.SRINIVASA REDDY,
S/O SRI K.S.NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
NO 388, D.V.G. ROAD,
VENKATESHWARA EXTENSION,
SRINIVASAPURA,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.R.SUNDARARAJA GUPTA, ADV.,)
AND
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE
TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
MULTISTOREYED BUIDLINGS,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001,
BY ITS SECRETARY.
2
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560027,
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.T.K.VEDAMURHTY, GP FOR R1,
SRI. B. PALAKSHAIAH, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE
KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PASSED IN APPEAL NO.425 OF 2006 VIDE ANNEX. C IN
SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE DIRECTION UNTIL THE
DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN
S.L.P. NO.4480 OF 1998.
IN WP NO.12584/2011
BETWEEN:
M/S.KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
CENTRAL OFFICES,
SHANTHINAGARA,
K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B. PHALAKSHAIAH, ADV.,)
AND
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE
TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
3
MULTISTORIED BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001,
BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. SRI. K.N. SRINIVASA REDDY,
S/O A.S. NARAYAN REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
NO.388, D.V.G. ROAD,
VENKATESHWARA EXTENSION,
SRINIVASAPURA,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.T.K.VEDAMURHTY, GP FOR R1,
SRI. B.R.S. GUPTA, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE HON'BLE KSTAT
ON ITS APPEAL NO.425/2006 DATED 27.12.2010 AS
PER ANNEXURE-C.
THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR BEING
SPOKEN TO THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These two writ petitions are directed against the order dated 27.10.2010 in appeal No.425/2010 passed 4 by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to their ranking in WP No.13314/2011.
3. Petitioner is the holder of a stage carriage permit bearing No.43/2000-2001 on the route from Hebbani to Madanapalli. Petitioner submitted an application for variation of permit for additional trip and additional vehicle in respect of very same route. Second respondent also made a fresh application for grant of fresh permit on the same route. The first respondent vide resolution dated 03.09.2005 rejected the petitioner application and granted the permit to second respondent.
4. Aggrieved by the rejection of claim of petitioner and allowing the claim of second respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal in appeal No.425/2006. Under the impugned order, the 5 Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the resolution dated 03.09.2005 and remanded the matter to first respondent for re-consideration. While remanding the matter, the Tribunal further directed the first respondent to defer the consideration of claim of petitioner and the second respondent until the disposal of SLP No.4480/1998. The operative portion of the Tribunal order is as under:
"Appeal No.425/2006 is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.09.2005 in Sl. No. 25 Sub. No. 452/2002 and Sl. No. 69 Sub. No.66/2005 is hereby set aside. The RTA is directed to defer consideration of the application filed by the appellant for variation, and the application filed by the KSRTC for grant of fresh permit, or any other application filed in that behalf by any other applicants in the available vacancy at Sl.No.115 of ISA between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, until the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No.4480/1998."6
5. The petitioner being aggrieved by that portion of the order directing the first respondent to defer the consideration is before this Court in WP No.13314/2011. The second respondent being aggrieved by the entire order of the Tribunal is before this Court in WP No.12584/2011.
6. Heard the arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.
7. The issue that is referred for consideration by the Supreme Court in SLP No.4480/1998 is in relation to grant of variation of permit by way of additional trip and additional vehicle. Referring the matter will not amount to stay. It is not necessary for the first respondent to defer the consideration until the decision in SLP No.4480/1998.
8. In identical circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in "M/S. Total Environment 7 Building Systems Pvt Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Others", ILR 2009 Karnataka 4217, held that merely referring the matter to the larger Bench will not amount to stay of earlier decision.
9. In the circumstances, the order of the Tribunal insofar as directing the first respondent to defer the consideration of controversy is liable to be set aside. The Tribunal by taking into consideration the rival claims of the petitioner and the second respondent allowed the appeal and remanded the matter. The Tribunal noticed that while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the first respondent has not assigned any cogent reasons. Since the order of the first respondent was not a speaking order, the Tribunal rightly set aside the order of the first respondent and remanded the matter. For the reasons stated above, the following order: 8
ORDER
i) Both the writ petitions are partly allowed.
ii) The impugned order of the Tribunal setting aside the order of first respondent and remanding the matter to first respondent for re-consideration is hereby confirmed.
iii) The direction issued to the first respondent to defer the consideration till the disposal of Special Leave Petition in SLP No.4480/1998 is hereby set aside.
iv) The first respondent to re-consider the matter in accordance with law.
v) All contentions are left open.
If the second respondent is operating service as on today on the permit granted to them on the route in question, they can continue to operate in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE VM