ORDER
1. Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner who was an existing operator under the permit in question which was dated 25-1-1995 has filed this writ petition praying to quash Annexure-E judgment dated May 3, 2000 of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) made in A. No. 273 of 2000 rejecting his appeal against the resolution dated 16-3-2000
of respondent 1-RTA by which his application dated 25-1-2000 made under Sections 81 and 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for renewal of his permit with respect to his stage carriage had been rejected.
3. It is not in dispute that petitioner was operating his stage carriage on the route from Gadag to Ranebennur in erstwhile Dharwad District area which presently falls in the new District of Gadag, under a permit which was valid upto 5-4-2000. Therefore, said application was made by him before the competent authority-RTA for renewal of said permit. His application was turned down by R1’s resolution at Annexure-D dated 16-3-2000 on the ground that the route on which the petitioner’s stage carriage was operating was found to be overlapping in the existing scheme covering the area. Aggrieved by that decision of RTA per Annexure-D, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal in Appeal No. 273 of 2000 on the ground, inter alia, before adverse decision as per Annexure-D was taken by respondent 1-RTA, no opportunity of hearing was given to him as contemplated by second proviso to sub-clause (b) of Section 81(4) of the Act which reads.-
“Provided further that no application under this sub-section shall he rejected unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the applicant”.
Section 81 deals with duration and renewal of permits. As could be seen from the proviso quoted it is the imperative requirement of law that the concerned authority dealing with any application made therein is bound to give an opportunity of hearing to the applicant before his application was rejected. I have gone through the impugned order at Annexure-D of respondent 1-RTA. Nowhere, in that order it is indicated that any such opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner-applicant before his application was rejected.
4. Learned Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 vehemently urged that there must have been some record of RTA in its proceeding indicating affording the opportunity of being heard to the applicant and therefore the record of its original proceeding may be summoned.
5. RTA acts as a quasi-judicial authority in exercise of its functions under Section 81. Whether an opportunity of hearing was given to the applicant aggrieved must be mentioned in its order itself without leaving any room for drawing such inferences from its proceeding. Therefore, the Tribunal has grossly erred in not considering this aspect in passing its impugned judgment confirming R-1’s order at Annexure-D.
6. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal dated 3-5-2000 in A. No. 273 of 2000 and the impugned resolution of R1-RTA at Annexure-D, dated 16-3-2000 are quashed. The matter is remitted to respondent 1-RTA to proceed afresh to consider petitioner’s application dated 25-1-2000 mentioned in its resolution at Annexure-D, and dispose of it by a fresh order according to law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove.