Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramesh T vs The Regional Transport Authority on 16 November, 2016
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.58190/2016 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI.RAMESH.T
S/O.THIRUMALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
BUS OPERATOR
#17TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN
B.T.M.LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 076. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.C.M.S.SHARIFF, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
RAMANAGARA DIVISION
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE
RAMANAGARA - 571 511
BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
TRAFFIC POLICE
K.R.PURAM JURISDICTION
K.R.PURAM
BENGALURU - 573 201. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R.B.SATHYANARAYANA SINGH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONSIDER THE APPLCIATION DATED
05.12.2014 FOR THE GRANT AND VARIATION OF THE
PERMIT ANNEXURE-B IN RESPECT OF THE PERMIT
2
NO.05/05-06 FOR THE ROUTE YELAHANKA UPANAGARA
TO CHANNAPATTANA AND BACK AND TO CONSIDER THE
SAME FORTHWITH AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider the application dated 05.12.2014 for grant and variation of permit in respect of permit bearing No.05/05-06 for the route Yelahanka Upanagara to Channapattana and back. The petitioner in that light is also seeking that the second respondent be directed not to stop the vehicle operated in the deviated route to reach its destination in permit No.03/05-06 valid till 20.09.2015 and permit No.05/05-06 from the route Yelahanka Upanagara to Channapattana and back.
2. The petitioner is the permit holder in respect of the stage carriage permits as indicated in Para-1 of the petition. For renewal of the said permits, application has been made. At an earlier point, this Court in W.P.Nos.37026-37035/2015 through the order dated 3 07.09.2015 had granted the interim order subject to the petitioner producing proof of running the buses as on that day. Therefore, the right of the petitioner to run the buses subject to the said order would continue till the first respondent takes a decision on the application said to have been filed by the petitioner seeking renewal of the license and also for curtailment of the route.
3. To the said extent, in any event when the application is pending, a direction is necessary to be issued to the first respondent to consider such application in accordance with law and pass orders within a time frame. At the same time, the grievance of the petitioner with regard to plying the bus subject to the earlier order dated 07.09.2015 on the curtailed/deviated route without interference by the second respondent in that regard is also necessary to be considered.
4. However, since, this Court has taken note of the fact that an application dated 05.12.2014 as at Annexure-B filed by the petitioner for curtailment/variation of the route has been filed and is 4 pending and as indicated above, since the said application is yet to be disposed of, if the bus belonging to the petitioner under the said permits is being operated on the route for which curtailment has been sought by deviating, the second respondent shall not interfere with the movement of the vehicle of the petitioner under the said permits.
5. In that view, the first respondent shall take note of the application as at Annexure-B and dispose of the same within a period of three months from this day. Until the said application is disposed of, the second respondent is directed not to interfere with the operation of the services by the petitioner.
Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST