Smt Girijamma vs The Regional Transport Authority on 1 July, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Girijamma vs The Regional Transport Authority on 1 July, 2010

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE
}C)A'I'ED THIS. TI--{E 15'?' DAY OF JULY. 2010

BEFORE

'E'I'IE HON'BE.E MR. JUSTICE: :'\I\IA.ND BYRA.REI)I)\_'..___

WRIT WCTITION i\IO.36072/2009 IMV)
BETWEEN:

Smt.Girijamrna   ._

W/0. late M.N.'I'hippeswamy

Aged about 55 years,

Proprietrix

T hippeswamy Express,

Behind Churc:h Extension,  r  * -' 
Chitradurga.      Petitiorier

{By Sri.A.Ananda Shetty';IAI  A.  _

1 . 'i'l1e"R_egio1:1Ia_1_ 'I'ra"ns"pori: Authority,
_ .I)avar1éigei'ei  ' '
. « By" its See'1*et§1ry',

  __'1'he.}Viz_n1i21ging Director,

 i:.,.S._R'.'I'j:eCV._1;
 I3s_2'1g;1j!»oi"e 560 027. .. Respor1de.ni:.s

  Si'.i.'i.<Z'.:'I\/i.Shivayogiswamy - High Court Government.

 I..f'=PIea"d,ei* for Respondent. No.1)

This writ petition is filed under articles 226 and

  of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
 Am1ex~C passed by the Karnataka State Transport

Appeliate 'I"ribur1a1 in Revision Petition N0.294- of 2006

dated 16.09.09.

6



2

This writ peizition coming on for hearing this day.
the Court made the f€)HOW'i1'1g:, :-

ORDER

Heard the counsel for the p€T.ifi()1"i($l',-.":f3I;§1,'€ Government Pleader for respondent Nogi .a1i'd counsel for respondent No.2.

2. The petitiorier is .3-ho1de'1*__o'f a. 3i.;2i,f;;,>;'ev'_ear_i'iage_uI permit for the route Shimogefrtoo Qhitréidtirga stand back and Shimoga to and petitioner had filed an applica.tio11,wfora 1*er1ewa"l¥ the same on 25.7.2iO(3§'3;' « f1".}1e 'i'i'atriSVport Officer. Davangere. has coi'1sid.eredthe~sé1:idiVi'appliea1t:ion and passed an order on 1.5.9.2605'. respo1'1de1'1t;»Corporation however, the reiieﬁféiiv of the permit on the ground that there ie'».ove'rir_léi.ppir1g of the route between Homiali and Cross. The Regional Transport. Officer over» 1'L1ieduti_1e objection and gra.nt.ed the renewal. Against " ,th.e of renewal. a revision petition was filed before .. Ka.rnat.aka Siiate Transport. Appellate Triburial. by the KSRTC. The Appellate 'i'1'i'ounai though has held that. as the Shimoga Pocket Scheme has been modified. é exemption has been given to the perrnits a.1-reacly granted. but set aside the renewal of permit.»tin"f.t.i?:e ground that the Regional 'I'ransport.'l. 'A.utht;ri'tj;,"i Dax.-angere, did not have any te'rrit0rial'..J'z1risCiiet.ion' ind res ect of the Shimoda Division and';.in res of *¥--rar:t"-- :2» T. . ._ p ._ . A .

of permit to operate on the lyi.1"1'g._in= the e0unter-signature 0fft'h.e ViV1\""r':;1Ar1s}:)A<3--rti' Aiit11o1'ity, Shimpga, was esseiitiai not be over looked, while V It is in this baciigrounii Eli;-at peti]tjidn'e.ri--isvlbefoite this Court. 'I'--h'e .I.eaif'ned._ Ce.t1'i"is'e}' for the petitioner would submit thaté; _eVe_n 'A.e1'ssHi.in1ing that such a counter- Siglltﬁtlré, trioitgh____aceording to the counsel for the pet:'i~fiQn.er'~S'i1eZi:._a signatijre is not warranted, where it is tiiilifva sn:i.ailvA'istreteh of the route which overlaps the ﬂvr1otifie:;i'7r0L1te and thereibre, the requirement. of a .f'eQ'tii'itier signature was not necessary, it was proper for ' t.}i};:e Tribunal to have directed the petitioner to obtain the eonnter-signai:L.11*e instead of setting aside the grant of permit, insofar as overlapping is concerned which 5 4 completely throws the petitioners' services out: of order and therefore, he seeks an appropriate direction.

4. The learned eouirisel appe.aring for the respondent No. 2-Corporation would vehemently oppose any such relief being_.'g.rai§f.efi---Miii---.rA~ favour of the petitioner on the g1'o_uncl_4t}iej1't. tV.1;i€.:LTOt§ll]L?'ZfV31'*_ V signature not having been obtelineci at the re1ev.a11_t poi.1_.nf--.. of time. the petitioner now? being permittedto:"opVei*a1te is not contemplated i11..iaw and .ﬁ'}.(f'1;&.'f()1'(3, ﬁwo--u1.d"subnait that the petition be dis1nisse'de._f7 5.7Qiven'tiieifjeirc:..n'ins'tanee that, the stretch or rot1te_.whien'0tIe'riaps'- notified route is limited and "'i:}1erefore; e"v.r:1i if t1ie1'e was a requirement of obtaining Athe;~eou.nter~signature of the authority within the route. wlieiie t_Eiie17e?' is ove1'1e~1ppir1g.;, the petitioner Could have directecl, as rightly pointed out by the learned .Cf_)L1'E1--S€l for the petitioner, to obtain such counter it " -~:-1i--gnat.ure instead of setting aside the permit. to that extent.

@ 5

5. Accordingly. the writ petition is allowed. The impugned An11exu1'e~C is quashecl. The peifitioner is ciireeted to apprcntch the Regional 'Frar1spo1't A1,:.E:.hc);*'ii';y, Shimoga, for seeking cou1'1ter~sigr1att1re petitioner is eiititled to such COL]f1t©Vi'-Sig11.ii1i'L1'i'€é}"{H8 said Authority shaii consider such 1'Q..p1'ej5c;i"ii.ati.oti _é1i1d.:V'ideE:1ii_:

with the same in aCc:or<:i2tnceiV_i%\><iat.lVi1 from the date of receipt of the petitioner. . A n The pet:ition is Sd/-

JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court