S S Jagadish vs Regional Transport Authority … on 19 September, 2008

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 19TH my 01:' SEPTEMBER, 2008
BEFORE % 2

THE HOBPBLE MR. JUSTICE) AJIT J e::Na;g4%%&;1%  
WRIT PETITION No 26855 OF 2ee5.% f(_.Mf\r}.Ij[ % V'

WRIT PETYFION NO. 12;; 17;'2L0O5  T
W? 26865/G5 {MW V  AV % M A .
BETWEEN:
1 SSJAGMJISH V  _ ,  
S/0 LATE s G SHIVASH'ANKA13'A1A£1'_'__
AGED ABOEJT    
KRISHNEJVEURTHY Layomv  .. 

CHANA.NGIR I_ 120 m:_>%,= BH_x_é.D_RAVA*f'Hi

[By S1'i: B--R $[3'i\Iif);§gx'?£iRA;}A'(}UP'FA, ADV. )
AND: A 'V .. 

1 F, ._§}§EGIONAL..§FANSPORT AUTHORITY
v-  DA'JANGERE' REGION

" a I' LD;wg;qQ.gRE BY yrs 330

 X HQNNALI, SHIMOGA

 V'Ii\2i:'AV'''5i?'E1''j£<';'}Vf*.)S1-i
'  s/<1-.31.»: VEERAIAH
'MAJOR BENAKANAHALLI

~  mysm Is/1.0. NAGASHREE, A.G.A. FOR R1)

 PEFFFIONER.

. .. RESPONDENTS.

orders are questioned by the operators in these ?:_w__o writ

petitions.

4. Without going into the factuai”‘z*aspee1:s e ‘ j

suffice it to say that since the of
the same route, it is essentia1Vf:i*.@@3: the ‘
should have been c1ubbed._and.. however,
that exercise has not On this

short ground by the Tribunal
are 1iabie:’to%Be ‘ ‘ »

5. ConseqLiei1tj1y,.tlt1eA’foi}€i{ving order is passed:

A are alkowed. Annexure-D in WP

fAj_3nexure–C in WP 11117/06 are quashed.

‘ “‘=The remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal

i,*’V’i3i”aeeoI’d”a1§i:e with law. The Tribunal shall club both the

‘revi.sion.«A”petitions and dispose of the same in accordance

iaw.

Rule made absolute in both the writ petitions. fl

‘X