T.M. GANESHAN S/O B. MARAPPA GOUNDAR Vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CHITRADURGA REGION CHITRADURGA, BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI N. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE SRI K. NINGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 are granted stage carriage permits in respect of the same routes, Sacond respondent after expiry of the permit, applied for renewal of permit. At that point of time, there was joint survey. The report of the joint survey is found at. Annexure -B to the writ petition. The same reveals that there is over -lapping of the route, i.e., the route on which the second respondent is running stage carriage, overlaps the notified route. However, ignoring the same, renewal of permits was made in favour of the 2nd respondent. Questioning the said renewal, the petitioner herein filed R.P. No. 754/2010 before. Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. Though the 'Tribunal/Appellate Authority observes that there is overlapping of notified route, said contention is rejected on the ground that KSRTC has not fifed revision petition questioning the order of the Tribunal Hence, this writ petition is filed.

(2.) SRI . B.R. Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner brings to the notice of the Court the judgment of this Court dated 30th June 2011 passed in W.P. No. 17931/2011 and connected matters, The said judgment is in respect of the very routes. In the said matters, this Court did not interfere with the order of remand made to the original authority by the Tribunal. In view of the same, Sri, Shailendra submits that this matter may be sent, to the original authority with a direction to the original authority to reconsider the prayers of both the parties for renewal of permits,

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the following order is made: - Impugned order is quashed, Matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration of the matter In accordance with law. The original authority shall take into consideration the joint survey report vide Annexure -B while taking decision in the matter, alter hearing the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2, Till such time, the second respondent is permitted to operate the services.