IN THE HIGH caulk?!' 0:? KARNATAKA, "
DATED Tms mm 13m DAY op' AUGI.f§§§f£'.2C§.()8.._ '
BEFORE':
THE HONBLE MR. JUsTi<:_E R2tM_ 't.{OH£sié';}é:I§j§3I§;Y'.V
WRYF PETFYION. NO,.1G5£S6 01? 20c8:2mz 7
BETWEEN
SMT SFIALINIJAIN ; _ -
AGE:39 YEAR'S, 'g
W/0RATH::Ar:AR,.JAIN._;A' A
PROPRIETOR, JAIN 'f*RAV*B':;..(s,'~. 3
UPAsANA,TKA;)R1' 'EEMPLE-__RQA--DV,VV_
MANG,=\LORE..jT_v 'if _
...PETI'I'I€)NER
(By Sri {N L:«:%NAG%12:$:5:, j
Amf);:' "
A f j'rHE ¥::;§R2~s.ATAKA STATE TRANSPORT
«._ ALI':FijIORi'.FY, BY ETS SECRETARY.
. MUL'fiS'3f'0RED BUILDING
1:);~;AMBE9I<AR VEEDI-ii,
EMGALROE.
.. MELWHJ LEWIS
gs/0 NORBERT LEWiS
AGE;MAJOR,
YEDAPAEAVU HOUSE,
snrsmxaas pom',
MANGALORE
D.K.DIS'I"RIC'I'.
3 UMESH DEVADEGA
8
the Karnataka State Transport Appellate T1i13un,:i}--.pT(fer
short 'KSTA'I") instituted by Respondents_...._§E V
aggieved by the common or;(;!e:'7'_'_'ti'2":ite'éi=
Anriexure-"E", has
2. Facts
in brief ‘ere:-&VAt.Petitééner, ‘st.a.geEea1riage
operate? a transferee til” 7 5-76, from
one K. Variation by
extension g’éi Karnataka State
‘I’ra3:1$pm”t 0’ ‘Sheri ‘KSTA’), in Subject
No.88)”-200_2 A held on 15-11-2003,
Annexure ‘Bf the variation, consequent to
” _AW1J:it:.fh endefsefflent dated 31-07-2004 Axmexure–“C”
VT-fine permit when renewed for the period
to 2-11-2009 the petitioner was issued
igwitii ‘zendorsement dated 28-07-2004 Amiextlre-“D”.
V’_Reefi3ndents 2 to 4 claiming to be rival operators
. K atpplied for and eecured copies of the resolution
Armexure-“B” and within 30 clays therefimm, filed
tut
5 V ._
without an application to condone the delay fora
of more than 3 to 4 years befere filing of £3116″
Learned counsel piaces reliance.:’u;p-01} tiiie ;§éci.sic3:1.’_Qf V’
Division Bench of this Court ._
INDIA vs. KARNATAKQ %B’o.’!.~.m::-£1.
4. In {:>_1z1e1<_. to "V§e:;<V§er'1'teI1tio13. of the
learned an examinatien of
Sectitqzi' ' " 'gfefficies Act, 1988 {'Act' for
sh{)rt) V;1i8;?; {hat it provides for filing of
appeal Rfile the Karnataka Motor Vehicles
limitation and the pmceduze for
{if by a person agfiifived. As to who is a
has since been decided by a catena of
decisicfifig, the latest of which is by the Apex Court £11
"eA:21e ¢ase of MIT!-IILES!i GARG vs. UNION or INDIA 2.
wk
' 11.12. 1937' KAR 2554
2 AIR 1992 SC 443