AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—This petition is filed seeking to quash the order passed by the 1st Respondent in Sub. No. 104/05-05 dated 15.5.2007 at Annexure-M and to quash the order passed by the Tribunal in R.P. No. 81O/07 dated 30.9.2009 at Annexure-ZB and for such other orders.
Heard.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the 3rd Respondent, is riot a saved operator under the Bellary Modified Scheme and the Tribunal erred, in dismissing the revision petition of the Petitioner only on the ground that the route intersects at M.G. Circle, without looking into the original report which clearly indicates that there is overlapping of 0.2 Kms. from Jagalur Bus Stand to Jagalur Chitraduraga Circle and Davangere Bus Stand to N.R. Cinema Theatre for a distance of 1.5 kms.
According to the learned Counsel for the 3rdss Respondent, he is not operating on the route from Jagalur new bus stand to Chitradurga Circle to treat this as a overlapping instead it has to he treated as inter-section since the 3rd Respondent just crosses the Chitradurga Circle from one end to another to a distance of 200 mts.
It is pertinent to note that though the route is a notified route, it is very well within the city limits and that too when an alternative route bi available to reach the destination) it should be treated as inter-section.
On perusal of sketch at Annexure-C and the distance mentioned therein, the operation of the services of the 3rd Respondent cannot foe treated as overlapping but, it is only an inter-section,
However, if there is inconvenience caused to the Petitioner in operating the vehicle, he is at liberty to approach the Respondent authority to meet out his grievance,
In this regard the Respondent authority is directed to consider the case of the Petitioner and the 3rd Respondent with regard to variation of timings.
learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he will appear before the 2nd Respondent on 28.3.2011. Hence, the Petitioner and the 3rd Respondent are directed to appear before the 2nd Respondent on 28.3.20 11.
On such appearance the 2nd Respondent is directed to re-assign the timings after considering the grievance of the Petitioner with that of the 3rd Respondent, giving priority to the Petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
In view e� disposal of the writ, petition, Misc. W. 6737/2C10 fifed for additional grounds does not survive for consideration.