Karnataka High Court
Sri. V. Gopi vs The Regional Transport Authority on 10 April, 2019
Bench: Ravi Malimath, S G Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT
WRIT APPEAL Nos.4050-4051 OF 2017 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI. V. GOPI
SON OF SRI. J. VENKATACHALAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
BAMBOO BAZAAR,
CHINTAMANI,
CHICKABALLAPURA DISTRICT,
PIN: 563 125.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B R SUNDARARAJA GUPTA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
CHICKABALLAPURA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
PIN: 562 101.
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
CENTRAL OFFICES,
KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR,
2
BENGALURU-560 027,
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT No.1)
THESE WRIT APPEALS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22/03/2017 PASSED IN THE
WRIT PETITION Nos.47222-223/2013.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.47222- 47223 of 2013, by which the petitions were dismissed, the writ petitioner is in these appeals.
2. The petitioner filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the resolution of the first respondent dated 19.07.2012 vide Annexures-E and the order of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short 'KSTAT' )in Revision Petitions No.1160 & 1161 of 2012 dated 10.09.2013 vide Annexures-H and J to the writ petitions. 3 The petitioner claims that he was granted two stage carriage permits bearing Nos.8 & 9/2003-04 permitting to operate on the route between Jakkanayakanapalli Cross and Kathriguppa Cross, Kathriguppa Cross and Jakkanayakanapalli Cross, respectively. The said permits were valid up to 30.07.2013 The original grant of permit was questioned by respondent No.2 before the KSTAT in Revision Petitions No.357 and 358 of 2000. The KSTAT curtailed the overlapping portion and renewal was granted. It is stated that the renewal granted was ordered to be reconsidered by this Court in batch of writ petitions. When the matter was taken up for reconsideration by the first respondent, the first respondent instead of examining the matter based on the existing joint survey report, again ordered a joint route survey on 19.07.2012. Against the said resolution dated 19.07.2012 by which, route survey was ordered, the petitioner herein preferred revision petition Nos.1160 and 1161 of 2012 before the KSTAT. The KSTAT by its order dated 10.09.2013 dismissed the 4 revision petitions. Aggrieved by the order of route survey and dismissal of the revision petitions, the petitioner filed instant writ petitions. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions holding that joint route survey is necessary to ascertain the real facts with regard to overlapping of the routes if any, against which, the petitioner preferred the present appeals.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. Perused the appeal papers.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge committed an error in dismissing the writ petitions. It is contended that when route survey was conducted at the time of renewal of permit by the first respondent, there was no necessity for the second joint route survey. In the absence of any changed circumstances, the second joint route survey was unnecessary. Hence prays for allowing the appeals. 5
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate would support the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner by the order for joint route survey. Hence prays for dismissal of the appeals.
6. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on going through the order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge needs no interference. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is neither erroneous nor perverse. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was granted two stage carriage permits which were valid up to 30.07.2013. The second respondent had challenged the grant of permits to the petitioner before the KSTAT. The KSTAT curtailed the overlapping portion and restricted the route in question. Thereafter the second respondent preferred revision petition Nos.592 & 593 of 2011 before the KSTAT against grant of renewal to the petitioner. The KSTAT allowed the revision petitions, setting aside the renewal and directed 6 the first respondent to reconsider. On remand, the first respondent ordered for joint route survey. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner by the order of joint route survey. It appears that the joint route survey is ordered only to find out real facts as to overlapping of the routes, if any. The KSTAT in its revision order has observed that the joint route survey was necessitated since the second respondent had filed objections giving the details of overlapping of routes. In that circumstances, ordering of re-survey would not in any way cause prejudice or injustice to the parties. It is not the contention of the petitioner that there is violation or infraction of any law. No ground is made out to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE
mpk/-*CT:bms