K ANANTHARAJU Vs. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) permit bearing No. B.p. 10/57-58 authorised to operate on the route from Bangalore to madanapalli via hoskote, chintamani, t. Cross, royalpad and state border, to operate two round trips per day. The said permit is an interstate permit. It has been countersigned by the state transport authority, andhra pradesh. The appellant is a saved operator under the kolar pocket scheme.

(2.) the appellant fied an application on 22-6-1979 before the Karnataka state transport appellate authority, Bangalore praying for the grant of variation of the condition of the permit. The variation sought was by way of extension from madanapalli to thirupathi via vayalpad, pileru, bakrapet and chandragiri. The application was published in the Karnataka gazette dated 23-8-1979 under Section 57(3) of the motor vehicles act of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') objections-representations were invited in this regard. It also called for report from the concerned authorities on the need for extension. In response to the said notification, respondents 3 and 4 filed their objections, opposing the grant of variation.

(3.) the second respondent considered the matter at its meeting held on 19-1-1982 and thereafter granted the variation with a condition that the appellant shall operate the service with two vehicles instead of one subject to the countersignature of the variation by the transport authorities of Andhra Pradesh in relation to the portion lying within the said state. Against this resolution respondents 3 and 4 filed appeals before the Karnataka state transport appellate tribunal. These appeals were numbered as appeal nos. 182/82 and 189/82 respectively. In so far as the appellant was directed to put the second bus on the route he also preferred an appeal which came to be numbered as w.a. No. 215/1982. All these appeals came to be dealt with by a common order. The tribunal by its order dated 28-12-1984 allowed the appeals and set aside the grant of variation in favour of the appellant. Against the said Order, the appellant preferred writ petition No. 2669/1982. The learned single judge for reasons stated in his judgment, dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the order of the appellate tribunal. Under these circumstances, the present appeal has been preferred.