EN "THE HIGH COURT' OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 3. 1th DAY 01:' DECEMBER-- 2d§:éj"' A-
PRESENT _
THE H{)N'B-LE MR. M). DINAKARAILTA._ _-
AGED AB<:3'LIj'1f_42 firms
SHiKARIPU.RA--.."-- '
Si~££Mi.f).ABQUT 55 YEARS
,_ *S_{;BP:NAK::RE, SHIKARIWRA
. "--..V%~s14::.nyi»r)<;g:x'13is';'R1c7r
' GPA i-u;.;L13ER J.M GOPAL CQMMQN APPELLAMS
(By $~zi";<::.B.sRm1vAsAN SRCOUNSEL FOR SRE. M E'.
* ._NAr:1_gsH'; )
" THE REGIONAL TRAEVSPGRT AUTHORETY
SHIMGGA REGION
SHIMOGA
2 SHRI N 13 KASHINATHAPPA
S/C} SHEKHARAPPA ~ '
PROP: BASAVESHWARA MOTOR SERViCE{,---- _ _
MAR NGG BHAVAN
KEB CIRCLE, '* - _
SIHMQGA. ..c;oMM'<3N ~RE:s:)Qre;:gN*;fs 3
(By Sri: S V I{RISI*iNASWAMY_FOR C; 3322..
SRI.i3.VEERAPPA GA FOR Rli _ 3
THESE TWO wR:irVI"AP1?E;I_Ls "2'&I"x?E'*3"fILED U13 4 C211'
THE KARNATAKA HIGH .
Tribtmal (hereinafter caiied 'the KSTAT') passed
No.998/2005 dated 15.3.2008. It is averreé.-- i:r} V A'
petition that petitiancrs hold stage cg °'
No.78/1999-2000 valici upto 117.2:-i;1'2ao9"-_
No. 332/9899 valid upto 1S."i§T2'G~1.2 are = L'
aficcteé on the common t};ié* of the
second respondent befi&:%;c§n_ for a
distance of 43 kms é1nd ” afld
back ‘£0 and Masur to
Witfi of second rcsponéent. The
mm? an§£¢-ed ‘Vap;«g§s;11″§4o.998/2005 flied by the second
oxtier of the firs: xesponcient datcd
‘i6.§;20’QS;~ –further averred that the Appellate Tribunal
“15.3.2008 has afioweci appeal No.99?»/2005
first mspondcnt to renew the permit by
.faé:c£:pt§z1§gs the compounding fee of Rs.8,5(}O/- and
— ifipffiéement 01′ Vehicie in his wrmit which had expired anti
” Hétéincciied by the firs: mspondent in the procceciings daied
19.6.96 and therefare the saici Ordfii’ is fiabie to be set aside.
K2
The ieaxned Single Judge afler consiatiering the ceI1te11tie–n”‘Qf
the learned counsel appearing for the pefifiofiers i .
learned Government Pleader appear3′.z:Lg__for }’-!;).1_ K V’
and leaxned counsel appeaxing if”m;:ié:i_j
that the petitiener had snppzeésesi the feet fJ3a§:ei’f;e’r..p§;s:sin:g L’
of the order by the KSTAT whic_h.:prQdueed«– ai_:§.An:1izeXu1e~D
to the writ petition, pee’5;iti«:;1;ei~:~;_’L*.};Tm:§, appeared and
participated in the proeeee§_i:3.g’ first respondent
and ‘{)ftier::¢iéeee1i’–.ipaesed”‘ a resolution has been
passed en eézid order has been passed in
Annexure-«ii i7é:1*itV.!netitioz1. The said fact has been
suypiressed in xizxitegietifion ami in Vi€W of the deliberate
~3i.ippree$ion«.e1’*the materia} fact, the petitioner is not entitied
iéiziy Vtiie writ yefifinn and accordingly, dismissed
~V the and irnpoeed Cost of Rs.25,()(}{)/– to be
M ii with the Registrar within two weeks froze the state
{hes order. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned,
ii “Single Judge dated 7.1 }..2%8, the petitieners have piefexred
this appea}.
\)
3. We have heard the learned Senior ~’
appearm g for the apgmilants, iearned counsel ‘
eaveatorwrespondent No.2 and the ‘
Advocate agapearing for zespondent fie.
material on recoml.
4. The material «_ reebfti ..«c1ear’1Vy*’A shew that
though the p€tifiOfi€’:I’ had passed by the
KSTAT:i1″1mAppea1i§té§99S{2O05«tiétet1 15.3.2008 Annexmefi
t0 the Show that petitioner had
partiejpateel””before’v–_ respondent pursuant to the
* temand v*a3:e:«KSTAT and an order has been passed
b.j; T1*e$e11§ti%m:.’dated 18.9.2008. The said fact has been
si1pi;;’I’esse(1V’ti;1A.t;11e writ petition.
Raving regaxd to the above said facts as the
A fact has been supgreseed by the petitioners in the
petition, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the
appeflants fairly submitted that the eppeflants would confine
the appeal regarding award of cost; of Rs.25,0{)O/– and
\)
submitteci that the cost irnposed is excessive. s.az:§e”‘
may be set aside. The learned cdzglnsffi
caveator-rcsmndent No.2 81¢’ A_l£:aInedT –‘V€3~r.fi Iernaé”1ei1f
Advocate appeaiing for r¢5:s}:}o:1c1’f 1 afigulééi §1 1p1;0rt of
the order passed by the -.\Ji111d.ge.
6. On A;f11£v:::Er£}ii.1£ention of the
lsaxncci co1:J.n:;-E:1_ we find that
theugh _ _t1_;€: Z: first msgmndent dated
18.9,2{}§)8 ._ has been prociuced as
A.nMnexuré~E tc> has not been avfixmd in fllfi
V§l*’I’if.4;:1’i} E ‘ii§.’:;iO]Zl.. V’ oréier passed has been pmduceai as
t{§”«t,}1e w:ri”{ petiticm, interest of justice Wonk} be
the cost awaxded on the petitioner from
Rs;.E5,G(}U,’.%.:’~’t€§ Rs.1,0€)O/~ ané subject to that modification
‘”:yn1y, order passed by the learned Sizxgle Judge
” diamissiug the Writ petition, (lacs 110%: suffer from any error or
_,V_i3if:ga§ity as to call for interference in this appealg
Accordingly, We pass the foiiowing order:
\/°
The order passed by the: learned éaféi ~« ..
7.11.2008 dismissing the writ mgfifiofij’ ‘r;z’$’;’-9]«:ac*:;§.é.,_i§
confirmed. However, the cost aWaxdeti 1if;on *’
reduced to Rs,1,{)OO/«W (Rup€é ‘sL»..VV:€3ne ofiiy) to ba
deposited with the Regiétrar cofiéi four
weeks from tosday. The disposed of,
accozrdingiy.
Sd./-
Chéei Justice
sal-
Iudge
Endax: Yes] We