JUNIFER C. ALVARES S/O JOSEPH ALVARES Vs. THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE--01 AND NORBERT MONTHERIO S/O NOEL JOELARK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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).

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the appeal papers.

(3.) 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.