AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in W.P.Nos. 30261--62/2009 (MV) are before this Court in these appeals, assailing the order dated 18.01.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has set aside the order dated 08.09.2009 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (''KSTAT for short) in R.P.Nos. 662 and 663/2008. The KSTAT by the said order had set aside the order dated 29.11.2008 passed by the Secretary, State Transport Authority (''STA'' for short) in Subject No. 31/2006--07 whereunder the timings had been assigned in favour of the second respondent herein to run the bus services in the route Devipura to Pilikula and remitted the matter for reconsideration by keeping in view the District Magistrate''s Notification (''DM Notification'' for short).
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the appeal papers.
The solitary issue in the instant appeals is as to whether the route for which the second respondent herein has been granted the permit and the timings being assigned is in violation of the DM Notification. The facts herein reveal that the second respondent has been granted the Stage Carriage Permit by the STA on 16.08.2006 in Subject No. 31/2006--07. The said permit was for the route from Devipura to Pilikula via Kanvathirtha, Talapady, Thokkottu. Kankanady. Bendoor, Mallikatte and Vamanjoor to perform 23 single trips per day by one vehicle in respect of which the timings were to be assigned. One of the conditions of the permit is that the grantee shall not enter the restricted area imposed by the DM Notification dated 06.04.1993 and 26.07.1994. The timings have been assigned in the instant case on the said route for which the permit was granted. The appellants herein called the same in question in the revision petition filed in R.P.Nos. 662--66372008 before the KSTAT. The KSTAT was of the view that the DM notification prohibits the second respondent from plying to Mallikatte from Kankanady via St.Agnes and the same requires reconsideration at the hands of STA.
Though the KSTAT had presently remitted the matter to STA for reconsideration on the premise that there is violation of the DM notification, as rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge, the STA had passed the order on considering the survey report of the RTO. Mangalore, in Subject No. 2/2003 which related to an identical route from Devipura to Moodashedde. Yet another aspect is that the second respondent has also relied on two separate orders dated 26.05.2001 passed by the KSTAT in R.P.No. 1168/2000 and R.P.No. 1447/2000 which was noticed by the learned Single Judge and the same is also before us. The said orders were relied upon by the second respondent to contend that the route between Mallikatte to Kankanady via St. Agnes is not hit by DM Notification. Such conclusion had been reached by the KSTAT in the said revision petitions after spot verification. The learned counsel for the appellants however sought to contend before us that the order of the KSTAT in a different case would not bind the subsequent proceedings and cannot be treated as a precedent. The learned counsel also referred to the Resolution of STA in certain other cases [Annexure--R.2(b)] to point out that it was held in those cases that the route Mallikatte to Kankanady via St.Agnes was covered by the DM Notification.
In the above circumstance, the question is only about the route being covered by the DM Notification or otherwise and both the parties have relied on the earlier proceedings to contend regarding the rival position relating to the status of the route. The said DM Notification has been issued with the object of avoiding traffic congestion and pollution in the City by regulating the vehicular movement and the same has to be adhered by the Transport Authorities as well as the permit holders. In the instant case, when the timings were assigned to the second respondent, the report of the RTO in a similar case in subject No. 2/2003 was relied by the STA, wherein it was reported that the route does not violate DM Notification. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellants is also to a similar proceedings in subject No. 201/2001--02 and connected cases. In such circumstance, the appropriate procedure in a normal circumstance would have been for the STA to reconsider the position in the particular case on hand. However, in the instant case, the second respondent has been plying the vehicle from the year 2007 and the appellants are rival operators in the same route. If that be so, what is also to be kept in view is the object of the DM Notification and in such circumstance, when KSTAT being a Revisional Authority over the STA had made a spot verification in a similar circumstance and had arrived at the conclusion that the timing assigned in similar route does not offend the DM Notification, the same would be of substance to be relied upon. Hence, the reconsideration of the matter by the STA in the instant; case, at this distant point in time is avoidable, rather it is unnecessary. That exercise in any case would be made by the STA if in case the matter arises for consideration after the present permit period comes to an end and in the event of there being any proceedings for renewal.
Therefore, in a circumstance, when the learned Single Judge has considered the present facts in the background of the material which were on record, more particularly, the order passed by the KSTAT in an earlier case, wherein factual finding was rendered, we see no reason to interfere with the order impugned in these appeals.
Accordingly, the appeals stand dismissed. No order as to costs.