AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Sri. B.R.S. Gupta, learned Counsel accepts notice for respondents No. 3 to 5. Learned Government Advocate and the learned Counsel for the respondents are permitted to file the Memo of Appearance/Vakalath within a period of four weeks.
Considering the short point that arises for consideration, the petitions are taken up for disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
The petitioner herein is calling in question the order dated 22.10.2009 passed in R.P. Nos. 566, 569 and 579/2006. The said order is impugned at Annexure - "B" Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 herein were the petitioners in the said Revision Petitions, wherein they had assailed the endorsement dated 27.04.2006 issued by the Secretary, RTA, Chamarajanagar, wherein the permit No. 28/94-95 held by the petitioners therein came to be renewed for a period of ten years from the dates indicated therein.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that firstly the revision petitions could not have been entertained by the Tribunal to consider the case on merit since the petitions are admittedly filed beyond the period of limitation without accompanying the same with an application for condoning the said delay. It is further contended that even otherwise though the renewal has been held as made in violation of mandatory requirement of law, but it has not pointed out, the violation, if any as indicated in Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, it is contended that the order on the face of it is a non-speaking order and the same cannot be sustained.
Learned Counsel for the contesting respondents would contend that the issue relating to the delay was not urged before the Tribunal and it is urged for the first time before this Court in these petitions and as such in any event, if such an issue was raised before the Tribunal, it would have been open for the contesting respondents to seek condonation of the same before the Tribunal, since there is provision for the same as contemplated in law.
Having heard the learned Counsel, it is unnecessary to express any opinion in these petitions with regard to delay. In any event, I am of the view that even on merits, the Tribunal has not considered the matter in detail. Therefore, while examining on this aspect of the matter, it is seen that the Tribunal has merely retried to the expiry of licence on 14.02.2010 and the filing of the application subsequently. Further details with regard to the nature of consideration by the RTA has not been discussed, but has indicated that the mandatory requirement of law has not been complied. Therefore, in my view, on that short ground, the order dated 22.10.2009 is not sustainable and the same is accordingly quashed.
The matter stands remitted to the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, to restore the petitions in R.P. Nos. 566, 569 and 579/2006 on file and reconsider the same afresh by providing opportunity to all the parties on all aspects of the matter.
All contentions are left open to be contended before the Tribunal.
In terms of the above, the petitions stand disposed of. No order as to costs.