" AND - 1 III THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DATED THIS THE 23% DAY 01? JULY "[%[ » V BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE (913535; Vk
WRIT PETITION N0. mizk %
SR1 M N RAJU s/0 NAG.a_NAG0wI§A
AGED ABOUT 42 YRS _ ‘
PROP SR1 LAXMI EXPRESS <
MADAGENAGELREI »
JAGALUR %
DAVANAGERE DIS'-E..'_ ' ~ '
= * PE'rmoNER
{By Sari: E ii sm.1:;ENDR}3. as SHWANANJAPPA, ADV)
_-.'.._..-
~ Q’ T*a*§%E .R§;G.;bNAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
. DAVAMGERE REGION
DAVAIFEAGERE
33* SECRETARY
V. Sfil B K BALAKRISHNA RAG
gs/0 LATE B N KANIJOJI RAO
AGED ABOUT 58 YRS
PROP MAHADEVI MOTOR SERVICE
01.9 .3113 STAND
DAVANAGERE
3 THE MANAGING DIRECFOR
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT 1
2%
CORPORATION 2
CENTRAL OFFICE
K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE 27
(BY sm’. NAGASHREE, HCGP F’OF{ R1) ‘ .. v ‘
T
(By 31-1: H B NAGARAJA, ADV FoR.c/R2 )’
(BY SR1. SHANKARNARAYANA RAG,’ FOR R3)” ”
THIS WRIT PETITION IS’l”~”$ I’V.’}1’*.”..iI) uivDERvAA:?f3cLES 226 AA
AND 227 OF “rm: CONSTI’I’U’I’jG:N_ (21? INDEAVPRAYING To
QUASH THE rmpucmgn .=0r«zm_:R 9;1;*2ooe IN
R.P.N()S.684/2006 Al~i«D.T’_11,?95:j’2*0(}’?« PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA gram TRA.NSPt3E~?§’ TRIBUNAL
VIDEANNEXURE-E.
‘:*H”:s* CN FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN *Br~«:;1eQug VHTHIS DAY THE comm’ MADE
THE FC}LLOW’Ii§G{_j _
Eiii£3n'”‘..fl,, “” to the learned counsel fin” the
32.3 afier a joint routs survey that can
V. on thfi fact as to wlwther the route in
q’uesti5u;1 i~overlaps the notified route or not. Admittedly, the
route survey was not oonduchw nor a. report
before ganting permit in flavour of the petitioner,
though the route was opened by the State: Govt. in exercise
iii
3
of its juxisdiction under Scc.68{3)(ca) of me Moto3* :’V: 1_i}1V§i:3g:
Act, 1988 ibr short the Act.
2. In the light of the decision of me_ «..
xsmc vs. Ashmfuna Khan mporxpd ;’eai
no permit can be granted on ,
mute. If that is so, the the Act
cannot extend to ” . tion notifying the
routes. It was in this State
Trans1i9:t._ Z in its order impugned
theught ‘« » gs to the Regional
Txangipext fir consideration of pctitioncr’s
with a n:od%’ mute, so as not to
route. In the circumstances, I find no
mg: in_m:g’.p¢uaon and is accordingly rejected.
Since 90 days’ time yanted by the order of the KSFAT
A {T ,.«€’=/ the RFA to cxsnsieler and (173906: of
pefifionefs application, in any event, within a period of
M
three months from the date of recap’ t of a ce11:fi:.’ of ‘
order. –
wig