High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Shalini Jain vs The Karnataka State Transport on 13 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Shalini Jain vs The Karnataka State Transport on 13 August, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
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