GOWDA C R Vs. KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in this writ petition has. prayed for (1) a writ of cetiorari quashing the grant of permit in favour of the fourth respondent dated 9-6-1966 as well as the order dated 2-5-68 in Appeal No. 788 of 1966 and connected matters! together with the order made in Review No. 92 of 1981 on the file of the first-respondent Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (2) issue of a writ of mandamus to respondent 3 to consider his application in response to the notification under S. 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and (3) to grant to him an Inter State permit on being satisfied with the conditions mentioned in the reciprocal agreement.

(2.) The facts leading to this petition may brisfly be stated as follows: Petitioner is a stage carriage operator in the State of Karnataka. So is respondent 4. Petitioner, (he. fourth respondent and several others were applicants for a permit for a stage carriage permit on the route : Bangalore to Tirupathi via Krishnarajapura etc. Fourth respondent was granted per mit by the third respondent RTA, Bangalore, by its resolution dated 9 3-1966. That grant was challenged by the rival applicants as well as the objectors before the first respondent Tribunal (formerely Revenue Appellate Tribunal). The petitioner herein was one of the appellants having filed Appeal No. 1296 of 1970. That appeal came to be dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal for non-prosecution as the petitioner herein repeatedly took adjournments refusing to submit arguments in the case. That order of dismissal was challenged in WP NO. J926 of 1981 in this Court, Jagament Shetty, J, rejected the writ petition having regard to the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the petitioner before the Tribunal. He, however acceded to the request of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in that writ petition to make certain observations to the effect that if the petitioner tendered an apology to the Tribunal aud moved the Tribunal for review of the order of dismissal, the Tribunal was free to consider such an application notwithstanding that the writ petition was rejected. Thereafter, a review application was presented before the Tribunal and also an affidavit a part of which Was devoted to tender an apology to the Tribunal in respect of the conduct of the petitioner csrlier in prosecuting Appeal No 1296/70. The Tribunal in its order dated 2-6-1981 rejected that review application on the ground that the petitioner had not made out a case of error apparent on the face of the record. Nor was any strong or sufficient reason for reviewing the order was shown. The Tribunal in its latter order also observed that the petitioner was not interested in addressing arguments on the basis of the available record. In other words, it is reasonable to infer that when the review was moved before the Appellate Tribunai, the Tribunal offcred to hear arguments on merits and the petitioner apparently refused to sub- mil arguments. Aggrieved by this latter order rejecting review, the present petition isprefered consolidating his prayers for quashing the grant of permit; for setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and for a mandamus to consider his application and grant to him the permit.

(3.) The last mentioned prayer cannot be granted. At best he had only a right to have his application considered but not for a direction that he shouid be granted a permit. In any event the other parts of the prayer also cannot be granted because that permit has been granted to someone else,