Karnataka High Court
Sri L. Sathish vs The Regional Transport Authority on 11 March, 2014
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WPs.10121-10124/2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.Nos.10121-10124/2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI L. SATHISH
S/O SRI LINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR,
SRI PANCHALINGESHWARA MOTOR SERVICE,
SHIVANANJAPPA LAYOUT
MANDYA
2. SRI MANOJ KUMAR,
S/O SRI MANCHE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
PROPRIETOR ,
GAJANANA TRANSPORTS,
HALDENAHALLI,
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
3. SRI K.P VENUGOPAL
S/O SRI K.C. PUTTEERE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
PROPRIETOR,
MAHADESHWARA MOTOR SERVICE
KIRGAVAL,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
4. SRI BASAVARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
KANNAMBADI MOTOR SERVICE,
BESAGARAHALLI,
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B R SUNDARA RAJA GUPTA, ADV.)
WPs.10121-10124/2014
2
AND
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
MANDYA 571 401.
BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
MANDYA 571 401.
3. THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD-
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 027.
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI I. THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R1 & R2
SRI HARISH KUMAR M.S., ADV. FOR R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
RESOLUTION OF THE 1ST REPSONDENT PASSED IN PRINCIPAL
SUBJECT NO.8/2013-1 DT. 21.11.2013 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. In these writ petitions, petitioners are seeking to quash the resolution dated 21.11.2013 passed by the 1st respondent - Regional Transport Authority, Mandya, in Subject No.8/2013-14 vide Annexure-A.
2. By the impugned resolution, the RTA has resolved to grant Stage Carriage Permit in favour of the 3rd respondent WPs.10121-10124/2014 3
- Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. Accordingly, it has granted 95 permits for different routes in Mandya District, out of 142 permits sought by the 3rd respondent. A direction is issued to the Secretary, RTA, to assign timings without affecting the existing private operators and keeping in mind the need to extend bus services to the rural areas and also the interest of students, employees and agricultural labourers.
3. Sri B.Sundararaja Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are all rival and existing operators and are seriously affected by the impugned resolution resolving to grant 95 permits in favour of 3rd respondent - Corporation. It is his submission that there is total non-application of mind to the relevant materials and non-consideration of the requirements by the RTA. He has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of SADASHIVA REDDY Vs. LALA SHERIFF
- ILR 1999 KAR 666 to contend that challenge can be maintained by the rival and existing operators against the grant of permits in favour of others.
WPs.10121-10124/2014 4
4. Sri Harish Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri Tharanath Poojary, learned Additional Government Advocate strongly resist the petition. It is contended by them that the writ petition is not maintainable as there is an alternative remedy of filing a revision petition before the Tribunal. They also urge that petitioners are not existing operators and cannot be called as aggrieved persons to maintain a challenge. It is lastly urged by them that the Court fee paid is insufficient inasmuch as 95 permits granted are challenged by four petitioners without paying the requisite court fee.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that question whether petitioners are aggrieved persons, whether at all they are existing operators duly granted with permits and if so, how they are aggrieved by the impugned resolution are matters that have to be examined by the Tribunal. In the writ petition filed under Article 226, petitioners cannot urge all these questions by- passing the alternative remedy. If the petitioners approach WPs.10121-10124/2014 5 the Tribunal, the Tribunal, I am sure, will examine the matter and return necessary findings. In that event, further judicial review, if any, will be easy for this Court, as there will be findings recorded on basic and disputed facts by the Tribunal.
5. Hence, reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Tribunal and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions urged, these writ petitions are dismissed. Petitioners will be entitled for exemption of time taken in prosecuting these writ petitions for condoning the delay.
Sd/ JUDGE PKS