AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—Petitioner has sought for to quash the order of the 2n Respondent-Appellate Tribunal in Revision Petition Nos. 17/2007, 18/2007, 126/2007 and 127/2007 dated 5.4.2007 at Annexure ''N'' and for such other relief.
According to the Petitioner, she was operating the vehicle with a permit even prior to the BTS scheme came into force during 31.05.2007 and on such remand of the matter regarding the variation and overlapping, the RTA, Bangalore Rural has renewed the permit of the Petitioner which was challenged by the 1st Respondent before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal has set aside the renewal granted to the Petitioner en 05.04.2007 as per Annexure ''N'' on the ground that it comes under the BTS scheme.
Heard.
It is the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that, she is operating the vehicle in question under the permit granted to her even prior to BTS scheme came into force, as such, she has to be treated as a saved operator as per the decision rendered in the case of Gajraj Singh etc. Vs. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others etc., . Except variation of timings, the order of Tribunal is bad in law, in so far as cancellation of the renewal granted by the RTA, since she comes under the category of saved operator.
Per-contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting Respondents has submitted that, Petitioner was operating only for a few weeks, she had no regular permit granted in her favour. The matter was considered by this Court and was remanded for fresh consideration wherein, the RTA has renewed the permit which has been rightly cancelled by the Appellate Tribunal as there is overlapping on the notified BTS scheme, as such, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. Accordingly, he has sought for dismissal of the petition.
According to the Respondents'' Counsel, the matter was remanded by this Court only with regard to overlapping of the notified route under the BTS scheme, as such, granting of renewal by the Respondent-RTA pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on such remand is illegal and Petitioner cannot be treated as a saved operator.
Of course, the Appellate Tribunal has cancelled the renewal of permit on the ground that there is overlapping and that the Petitioner cannot be treated as a saved operator. However, the contentions as to whether in the factual position the Petitioner could be treated as a saved operator and, whether she had been granted permit as per the ratio laid down in Gajraj Singh''s case or she was only operating temporarily, have to be examined by the RTA, Bangalore Rural.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Matter is remitted to the RTA, Bangalore Rural to dispose of the same in accordance with law, as stated above. All the contentions are left open to be urged. Parties to appear before the RTA, Bangalore Rural, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.