IN THE HIGH COURT 02-' KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 222:» my OF JULY,
BEFORE % A
THE HC)N'BLE MR. JUSTICE kREj:)I)VY _% "
WRIT PETITION NO.16(Bf? o;{;2oGs%$LtM'xi1
BETWEEN
SR: '1' PALANISWAMY
s/0 THIRMALAIAH G£3UNDAR"" -
AGED ABOUT 55 YRS _
R/AT No.10/23 OPP TO ._ '
PANCHAMUKI 'rEMp1,E... . '
K.R.R'~C_)A}?_J _
BANGALCRE DIST
- K! PETITIONER
(By;S1*i_; B 1% $;~jAILEi~iDRA 65 SHIVANANJAPPA
cg? 13 RAMES...H,*ADV)
" THE }{ARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
SBUILDING V FLOOR
.. FIR B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
i'3\fiNGA1.JZ)RE 1
" ' REP BY ITS SECRETARY
THE MANAGING DIRECPQR
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION. CENTRAL OFFICES
K.H.RGAD SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE 2'7
3
3 SR1 V s BHARI
S/0 H M VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 45 YRS j
R/AT No.53 HOUSING BGARD comm
Ci~iALLAKERE cnrrmnunea 9131* ' *
-A
(By SMT: NAGASHREE M C, HCGP j
(BY SR1. SHANKAR NARAYANA RAG. Agav FOR I212) _ " .
(BY sax. R LOKESH, ADV FOR 123) '-- ~ , ' ~
THIS WRIT PEFFTION is UNDER T.'?;R';'igLi3:s 226
AND 227 OF THE c0NsTmrr:<m_ ER D'I'.10.12.2007.
IN R.i'-'.NOS.'730/01, "A1413 L343/o'1,%% .. PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA STATE 'rRA;Ns?jRT ,--APPEL_L'ATE TRIBUNAL
VIBE ANN-K BYAESSUINGA WRE'I' 'QF CEWIOMRI.
- %L;.k%%j'%c0§%§m<3 ON FOR HEARMG,
THIS V§3A¥"THE.§?Q1IRT1V7MADE THE FOLLOWING:
%j'e R'Ln 1; n
V' The holder of a stage carriage pcsrmit,
the common order dated 10-12-2007
R.P.N0.730/2001 and 848/2001 of the
Stan: Transport: Apmllate Tribunal,
H " Baggéibm, has preferred this Writ petition.
' 2. Facts
in brief are, {me B31′. Yerriswamy held a
carriage permit bearing No.8/2001-02 granted by
the 1st respondent – Karnataka State Transport:
3
Authority (for short ‘KS’I’A’) for the route C.B. Halli to
Ramanagara. and back. That permit, it is stat«ed,_:iwfas
transferred to one Selvakumar with the
the authority and subsequently, *
petitioner. According to the
Yerriswamy filed an appiicoticn for?’ V L’
carriage permit on 9_-6-2{V)€_>£)w ‘ route
which when consideredaéi’ respondent along
with ” ineetirig held on 30/31-
o7~-2oo1__insuiijeeimc-{:86/2000, the 2nd respondent is
hatie stating that the proposed
” monopoly route, however without
of the scheme or relevant materials’ .
The 1$t.1″‘..%t§p0I1dCIlt rejected the objections and granted
a, “stage carriage permit on the basis of the route
‘ report obtained in respect of an i:dont1cai’ rotate
it by another applicant. The want of permit was
cailed in question in Revision Petition 210.723/2001 by
one D. Ambanna while the 2%’ and 3!” respondents too
M
4
preferred R.P.No.730/2001 and 343/2091 bef<$_1fe:'_tt;c
KSTAT. Though the challenge to the
was common in all the revision "
they were not clubbed before
dated 4-12-2001 Annex1:ie{“£}”, t he.__ “Pei§ition” A T’
No.723/2001 was allewedg—–~tii¢_ ‘pg.zmi’t”‘set-aeide and
proceeding the mattef to obtain’ a
joint mute ‘V eifivey V’ of the
appficfietiefie the date of receipt of
the oI€ef,’~ aVflZt’.I7[.’iipp0I’tl1I’1ity of hearing to the
parties aizd such time, the petitioner was
. V. the services. It is further stated
aggieved by the order Annexure-“G”,
fiied w;P.et~3o.J134s/2002 (MV) which was dismimd by
ezfdex; ‘deted 16-O1-2002 Annexure–“H”, observ1ng’ that
” shail consider the matter afresh, on remand
‘eritlxout being influenced by any of the observations
made in }”arag1aph 9 of Annexure-“G” order of KSTAT.
In the ixltezrwum, it is stated that the KSTAT, by the
xeirk
5
impugned common order A1:1ncxure-“K”,
Revision Pctifions of Respondents 2 and
terms of the order AImcxm’c-“(_}’.’,.. ”
days’ time to the STA to considcr:;’_th§%:
the applicability of the into” V L’
force by the Govemmcnt
3. Although raised in the
memorandum the learned
counool for contends that the petitioner
would be is directed to consider and
V. A_ of p¢_tjtioner’s appiication within a time-
o time granted in the earlier direction
j_ Court in the order Annoxure-“H” has
7 since.
” _ Learned AGA submits that the 1st respondent
is presently awaiting the report of the Joint route survey
and on receipt of the same, and within a reasonable
time, consider the petitioner’s application and mss
6
orders, in accordance with law and in the light of the
observations made in the orders referred to in tlte’»wfit
petition.
5. In the circumstances, this 1 ie,
disposed of with a direction to the Is: tmmndmzx
to consider the petifioner’s.aQpficetion forof L.
carnage’ permit in the ‘ the survey
report to be tee. and in the
light by this Court in
W.P.No. “:”tt;i;i1exLne-“Ii” as well as the
Ref” KSTAT in its order impugned
‘ any event, within four weeks from the
‘daite of of a certified copy of this order. Since the
tlouneel for the petitioner submits that the
A “ii oetitioner having been permitted to operate the services
” the order of the KSTAT, Annexure — ‘G’, is continuum’
to do so, I think it appropriate to permit the mfimxfiw
7
do so, if operating the services as on date, ”
of the application before the STA. ”