-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKLA AT
DATED THIS THE 2 zap my OF' NOVEM'£3~;3uR ;..:2(.)08 A "
BEFo$E j'
THE H'C)N'BLE MR.JFJ3TICE MAL1;s4iAi'ri'; %
WRIT PETr1'I0N Nofi-3Qc3;_>, O§"g._( i(J'?(M:V}
BETWEEN :
1 SREE GA;}AN'AN:'%v:isa§01'Qi?_ %.
TRAN$Pg'r CQMPANY. Lzmrma
; SAG1?kR,.,SH'§Mi)GA m..<s'1'RIcr,
'RESP. BY'£'FS "£2'XE:§3U'I'IVE DIRECTOR,
S:'i.P. su9_H§.::a:R~ -._1\_IAYAK,
3/ 'O._4Si*i..S;E.J.I*¥.AY5K,
% A3313 ABQUT'-54 YEARS, PETITIONER
% * %, 329:; as PARASARA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
' ' THE§"§2EGI0NAL TRANSPORT
AU'l'HORI'1'Y, UDUPI
# V' % THE SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
UDUPI.
3 THE PARTNER
DURGAMBA MOTORS,
0ZL<*'"
-2...
NH?-17, KUNDAPURA,
UDUPI.
4 $1915. N'E1i."FHA SATHISH
W/O SATHISH KUMAR
MARGONI GATE,
SRIRAM TRAWLS, %
VALACATIA,MANGALORE,»»I),K. * 'V
5 SmtISAMMA
W/O LATE K.A.MQELAMMED
RUBIA COMPOUN£),--.._ "~.__ *
0PP;()ASC1A HIGH SCHOQL,
JEPPU,MANCrALORE~,~~--D;I{. ' RES-PONDENTS
(I:3y"S:ri : & SRIKANTH A,
ADvocATE:§,;?0R _/'R:-3 S1nt.M.C.NAGASHREE,
HCGP, FOR 11243 (as R.~:_'2',,.':?.--1'i RLOKESH,
ADVOCATE, I3'fL_)I¥'£.I%»fA3'j_;.
" vv .P.1s"F1LED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
»A TI~EE'«CONSTI'FUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
V PASSED BY THE R1 VIDE DT. 7.10.2005
'-- A IN' GRAN'T;iN'G THE VARIATKJN OF' CONDITION OF
i?ERM'I'l_' 0N THE ROUTE THLRTHAHALL1 TO
MANGALORE 8; BACK WAY 014' CURTAILMENT OF THE
ROUTE E-'ROM BIDAKAL KA'I"}f'E TO BRAHMAVARA AND
AA VKD.EVLATION OF' THE ROUTE FROM BIDAKAL KATTE
' -AND VIBE ANX~D.
THIS PE'I'I'l'ION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
' DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
stflcw
ORDER
The petitioner aggrieved by the {)3} _
the Secretary, Regional X
respondent to refix the timings oftitze of L’
conditions of permit, the petittolzer appeal
before the Presiding’ State V:’I”ransport
Appellate ‘I’rib1_1_na1, ‘arm; virtue of the
impugaed vide Axmexure-H
and dismissed the appeals.
Hence, ” V’ ”
” The” “oniy… «contention raised by the learned
I petitioner is that notwithstanding his
ooittelt’ in the said matter the order passed by
the R~.’f;z§.Vdeserves to be set aside on the sole ground of
A “:t:V’_noti§_app1iea.tion of mind. He submits that the Presiding
V’ Qfficer of the Appellate Tribunai passed a common order
by clubbing 72 eases together. This clearly shows that
there is non-application of mind while passing the
%LJ,
impugned order. On this gmuiid alone the impugned
orders will have to be liable to be set aside.
3. On the other ha11:;i,….tIf;e
appeann’ g for respondents ~
does not impose a eondiit:ion.,_ the gve-it
reasons for the order, M0rt3Q’.’PJ’,–. ‘a..of,.the order
passed by the and every case
was “orders have been passed.
He fmther concurrent finding of fact
sho3:dci_ not by this Court and hence
i s;.::::¢nizés that the cpgfiuon be rejected.
-45′ -.iA§ot\Nit11standiI1g the contentions of the
V. petifioner and the submissions of the learned counsel
i “‘.i’o1**the respondents it is a, fundamental principle of iaw
“-‘tiiat no order could be sustained unless there is an
appiioafion of mind. In the instant case, prima facie it
W”
35
appears that there is no application of mind”‘*~–whfle
passing the impugxed orders by the 211″
the 72 cases have been taken together V:iaj’_._
which pre~–supposes lack of
passing the order. This gfound is verio1igf1eto”~ s’
set aside the order.
5. For the the folkowing
0I’CiCI’Z’-4′ –. . _
1’1} The V_.7.- 102005 vzide Annexure-«B
passed the respondent in Subject No. 106/O2~03
c37;1er”dVa’E*x*:-€;”24~’?-2006 vide Atmexure–E passed
/O2-03 by the 23*’ respondent and the
ciatcjf 15-10-2007 vide Annexum–H passed in
Appea1:’_ No.1573/52006 by the Tribunal and also the
V’:-‘ dated 18~ I0»-2007 passed in Appeal
‘ 157 1/2006 vide Annexure~J passed by the Tribunal
are hereby quashed.
/Ar”
” .rS’i§
-5…
2] The matter stands remitted A’ 1*”
respondent with a direction to pass :VA(§rderT$’
accordance with law.
In View of the fact that the
operating the services the ifidisturbed
until flesh orders a:ée”jmatie.ie_ .A ~ _
Writ peeuon