AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Petitioner, holder of stage carriage permit valid up to 06.02.2015, authorized to operate on the route between Bangalore to Madanapalle and back, having the entire route of respondent No. 2, in terms of stage carriage permit bearing No. 16/1997-98 and 05/2006-07, has filed these writ petitions, to quash the Orders dated 29.01.2013 passed in R.P. Nos. 1471 and 1472 of 2012, vide Annexures-C & D, by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Sri A.S. Parasara Kumar, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that as against a resolution dated 09.04.2012, renewing permit of respondent No. 2 bearing No. 16/1997-98 and 5/2006-07, respondent No. 3 had preferred, on 14.12.2012, R.P. Nos. 1471 & 1472 of 2012 and that the Tribunal has disposed of the petitions, on 29.01.2013, modifying the timings on the basis of a joint memo filed by respondent Nos. 2 & 3 herein, which is arbitrary and illegal. He submitted that the order of renewal passed by respondent No. 1 on 09.04.2012 is wholly without authority of law, as the routes in question overlap the notified routes of Kolar pocket scheme and BTS Scheme and the permits are not saved permits and the same were not valid on both the cut off dates, as held in, the Judgment dated 04.01.2010 passed in W.A. No. 5223/2009 and many other writ appeals. He further submitted that the said action of the 1st respondent being arbitrary and illegal and having been brought to the notice of the Tribunal in R.P. Nos. 1471 & 1472 of 2012, the revision petitions have been allowed and the impugned order has been modified, merely on the basis of a joint memo filed by the revision petitioner and the contesting respondent therein. He submitted that there is a collusion between respondents 2 and 3 herein, in R.P. Nos. 1471 & 1472 of 2012 and in view of the joint memo filed by them, impugned orders, detrimental to the petitioner''s service have been passed. He submitted that on account of the impugned orders, respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are operating the services detrimental to the petitioner''s service and that the actions of respondents 2 & 3 are not in public interest and that the modification of the impugned timings by the Tribunal, without affording an opportunity to the existing sector operators like the petitioner being opposed to law and all canons of justice, the impugned orders warrant interference.
Sri B.R.S. Gupta and Sri C.V. Kumar, learned advocates, appearing for respondents 2 & 3, on the other hand contended that the writ petitions are not maintainable and hence, the impugned orders do not warrant any interference.
Sri T.K. Vedamurthy, learned HCGP, submitted that the Tribunal is unjustified in modifying the order/s challenged in the revision petitions and in directing the Secretary, RTA, Bangalore (Rural), to endorse the modified timings as per the joint memo filed by respondents 2 and 3 herein. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal, ought to have found out, whether the order made by the RTA, impugned before it, is improper or illegal and decided the revision petitions on their merit. He submitted that the course of action which has been adopted by the Tribunal, to decide the revision petitions, on the basis of the joint memos filed by the revision petitioner and the private respondent in the revision petition/s is unsound and the impugned orders herein are vitiated.
Perused the writ record. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, noticed supra and looking to the grounds raised and urged by Sri A.S. Parasara Kumar, there being no dispute that R.P. Nos. 1471 & 1472 of 2012 have not been decided by the Tribunal in the manner provided under S.90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the revision petitions having been disposed of merely on the joint memo/s filed by the learned advocates for the respondents 2 & 3 herein, requesting the Tribunal to modify and assign the timings as suggested and the Tribunal having modified the impugned orders before it, with a direction to the Secretary, RTA, Bangalore (Rural) to endorse the timings to the service of respondent No. 3 as agreed between the contesting parties before it, in my opinion, the Tribunal has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it as per S.90 of the M.V. Act. The revision petitions have not been considered and decided on their merit, but have been disposed of in terms of the mutual understanding between the two operators. Thus, the impugned orders being arbitrary and vitiated, are unsustainable.
In the result, writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. R.P. Nos. 1471 & 1472 of 2012 stand restored for consideration and decision afresh by the Tribunal, after impleading the petitioner herein, as an additional respondent. Petitioner herein is at liberty to file the counter/s to R.P. Nos. 1471 and 1472 of 2012 within a period of two weeks.
Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 19.08.2013 and receive further orders. The Tribunal shall decide the petitions before 31.10.2013.
No costs.