ORDER Sri l<.M.Shivayogiswan'iy, the learned High:V"~lCQgt1'rt Government Pleader is directed to take notice V' respondent.
2. Sri Rajesh, the learned -.counsel'”for
submits that despite the resolutionflpassed'”bi’the:’r§Regionai
Transport Authority (R.T.A);:,…_.”t~h_e reassigned
thereinaccordancewith, Aggiri.e:§/ed “‘th’§–».j’,.’jsgginaction of the
Secretary, R.T.A_.’,_4 i:§é~i}’i’s;oii Petition 918/2007
before the /’Xtppellate Tribiinat (K.A.T).
The K.A.T.}% by _ (‘g”FV:’V>VtV’1V1.2OG7, disposed of the
revision petitlidnélwith the respondent to take up the
timings 4.=§i’,i’i:>}’sect of petitioner forthwith and endorse the
i=ev’ised:timirilgs:in,_the permit within 30 days.
.’3..”‘iSri”iiifilifihivayogiswamy, the learned High Court
‘”~..__So\_/ernme.nt.1Pieader for the respondent submits that the
has not produced the permit and other documents.
of timings, if any, has to be entered in the permi-ts.
_ Hehlvalso submits that the respondent is not aware whetiier or not
the petitioner’s permit is renewed. Further, as the validity
IIEH.
period of permit has expired, the question of assigning; or
reassigning the timings does not arise, is the submission ‘
Shivayogiswamy.
«ii. The learned counsel for the petitioneirim the
his rejoinder submits that the petitioner’s p’e.rni.i_t is I
2012. He further submits that by inad’vei*tence,’~–
has unnecessarily raised the chai.i,enge”‘t’o” t’he'”T,ribuna’i”‘s ‘order.-
The petitionerfs grievance is oniy over e_n,do§jsei’nent issued
by the respondent N0.13«Ofi«._Q:9.O3:”.2Qi.C’: at..i?X’iv€n~ex’urje;D.
5. The fi:fv)l’VV’F€fE.iSiflg to give a
direction to’-.the_ timings is the delay on the
part of the petitioner enforcement of the decision
after 4’/ggyiearrs oi the Tribunai has taken the view
change on the route in viewlof the
rivalop’e’r_a.toi*s””o,peraifing the service with convenient timingis.
6. Mypterusal of the impugned endorsement shows that
‘._’_:”the:i,”fi.rfst”~«_.respondent has proceeded on a fallacy that the
‘ V-Vifp_et’itioner is required to appear and produce certain documents
,,.,..,,,,i_3éfOre the respondent. In the Tribunal’s order, this Court does
FIEM.
not find any such direction. The direction is issued t_o.__»the
respondent only. The “¥”ribunal’s order has attained the-ffina«l.i’yt’y,
The endorsement, dated.O9.03.201O is liable to be
accordingly it is quashed. In the considered.yyéeirywol’
the ends ofjustice would be met by my ldireietlirilvg
to consider the case of the petit’i’o_n’e»tV_ in dacctordant:e:._;’w~it»%;”the ” ‘
“i”ribunal’s order, dated 0641,2007.V%f”
7. Further, the .”{o;v:».,§§tDpgar for the
respondent on at:i._1 waiténg for any
notice from the .t.ne”:petVitioner shall produce
ali the decttr;iietitsi,hh calls for from the end
of the petitéonzertl The consider the petitioners
case for aseia.,nmelh’t tih~ithg–.e Viiniaccordance with law within six I
wfeeitsy frond ‘tod-hay A.
l5’eti’tt.Qn’dsltaliowed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE