High CourtsDIVISION BENCH(2017) 07 KAR CK 0086

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC vs BHARAT KUMAR S/O SANATH KUMAR, & ORS.

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 19 July 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, P.S.Dinesh Kumar
CASE NUMBER
4435 TO 4437 of 2017 AND WRIT APPEAL NO 4444 of 2017 (MV)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 265 words
1.

These are appeals against the judgment and order dated June 22, 2017, in a batch of writ petitions.

2.

Those writ petitions were filed challenging the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority dated March 21, 2017, granting permits and assigning timings to the State transport undertaking.

3.

By the order impugned, the Hon''ble Single Judge set aside the said order of the Regional Transport Authority and remanded the matter to the Authority for re-consideration of the applications of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation.

4.

After hearing Mr.Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, Mr.P.S.Rajagopal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the private respondent and Mr.V.Sreenidhi, learned additional government advocate appearing for the State respondents, we feel that, when the matter was sent back for re-consideration by the Regional Transport Authority in accordance with law, there is hardly any scope to interfere with the order impugned.

5.

We, therefore, dispose of these writ appeals with a request to the respondent No.2 - Authority to re-consider the matter in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made by the Hon''ble Single Judge in the order impugned as those observations were limited for the purpose of remanding the matter to the Authority.

6.

We trust and hope that the matter may be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably by six weeks.

All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

7.

In view of the disposal of the writ appeals, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is, accordingly, disposed of.

8.

There will be no order as to costs.