KULUSUMBI Vs. SECRETARY STA BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ petition is disposed of by the following order after notice to respondent.

(2.) The writ petitioner is the holder of a stage carriage permit on the route Bangalore to Jolarpet bearing No. P. ST. P. 1/68-69. The petitioner is the transferee of the permit which originally stood in the name of her husband. The petitioner applied for renewal of the aforementioned permit and the matter came up before the respondent- State Transport Authority in Karnataka, Bangalore, in Subject No. 190 1978 on 16/17-10-1978. The application for renewal of the permit was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. By virtue of the provisions cnotained in S. 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), she was enabled by operation of law to continue her stage carriage operations while the appeal was pending before the Tribunal . However, on 20-11-1979 the appeal came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by that order of dismissal, the peti- tioner filed WP No. 20434/1979 In the writ petition a prayer was included to give the benefit of S. 134 of the Act even in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution. That was rejected by the learned single Judge of this Court Aggrieved by the same, a writ appeal was preferred in W. A No. 833/1981. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Bopanna, J., allowed the appeal holding that the enabling provisions of Sec. 134 of the Act applicable to proceedings pending in revision or appeal could as well be extended in appropriate cases in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Consequently, pending disposal of the petition the Court dircted the respondent-State Transport Authority to endorse the permit as current for the Inter-State route Bangalore to Jolarpet. However, even though the petitioner presented an application with the permit on 1.7.81 to the respondent herein, seeking an appropriate endorsement to her permit on the route Bangalore to Jojarpet to be current pending disposal of W.P. No. 2043411979, nothing has been done. Therefore, the petitioner is aggrieved in as much as she is not able to operate her stage crariage on the route in qquestion in the absence of endorsement from the respondent which in turn will enable her to get necessary counter-signature from the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, she has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondent to dispose of her application by issuing the endorsement, a copy of which is furnished as Annexure-A to the writ petition.

(3.) It is clear from the judgment of this Court in WA No. 833/1981 that the petitioner should have the benefit of S. 134(1) (A) of the Act while her writ petition is pending in respect of the renewal of her permit on Bangalore- Jolarpet route. It is evidenced by Annexure-A that a certified copy of the judgment of this Court was also attached to the application. The respondent in spite of it, has not is sued the endorsement even after the lapse of three months. This Court takes a serious view of the matter. The judgment of this Court is meant to be obeyed in the State of Karnataka by all authorities, and as such, a duty is cast upon the respondent to give effect to the provisions of Art. 261 of the Constitution. In the result, as he has failed to perform his duty in respect of a right vested by virtue of the judgment of this Court he is duty bound to issue the, necessoendorsement in terms of S. 134(1) (A) of the Act. He shall do so within three days from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, rule will issue and be made absolute. Shri M L Pandurangaswamy, learned High Court Government Pleader has been heard and is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks from today