PRABHAKAR GOGI Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY SHIMOGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 3-4-2000 in Revision Petition No. 1111 of 1997.

(2.) THE facts in brief are as hereunder: the petitioner holds the stage carriage permit No. 83 of 1993-94 for the route Shimoga to Anavatti and back. He filed an application for variation of the conditions of the permit. The Regional Transport authority (R. T. A.) considered the said application under Sub. No. 7 of 1997-98 in its meeting held on 4/5-6-1997. The variation was granted and the matter was referred to the Secretary, R. T. A. , for fixation of timings. The Secretary, as per Annexure-A assigned the timings. Aggrieved by the grant of timings, respondent 2 filed a revision petition before the Tribunal in R. P. No. 1111 of 1997. Since there was a delay in approaching the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent rightly filed one application for condonation of the delay and another application for grant of stay. The Tribunal has now passed an order at Annexure-B ordering the secretary, R. T. A. , to consider the timings by giving opportunity to all the existing operators within 20 (twenty) days from the date of receipt of the order. This order is questioned by the petitioner before me.

(3.) MR. N. Rajashekar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner finds fault with the Tribunal inasmuch as the Tribunal has failed to consider the plea of limitation and also failed to consider the I. A. filed by the 2nd respondent for condonation of the delay. His argument is that without considering the said I. A. , the Tribunal has virtually allowed the revision petition thereby giving a go-by to the statutory provision of limitation to the proceedings. He further argued that the Tribunal has also not given any finding anywhere with regard to the validity of the impugned order in the revision order. In these circumstances, he says that the Tribunal may be directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. Per contra, Mr. Krishnaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent states that his client did file an application for condonation of the delay. He states that the order of the Tribunal impliedly indicates that the Tribunal has condoned the delay and hence the impugned order has been passed. He also says that the matter was remitted back and the petitioner is not aggrieved by the order.