PRABHAKAR ADAPPA Vs. K S T A T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions coming up for preliminary hearing after notice to respondents are disposed of by the following common order as both of them involve common questions of law and fact.

(2.) The two petitioners applied to the 2nd respondent-Regional Transport Authority, DK, Mangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the RTA) under S. 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for grant of stage carriage permits on the routes Mangalore to Thottum and Hangarkatte to Mangalore respectively. These two routes were among the several other routes opened by the RTA under sub sec. (3) of S. 47 of the Act. The 2nd respondent RTA passed that resolution opening those routes on 19-7-1980. It was on 14-8-1980 that the 2nd respondent-RTA published under S. 57 (2) of the Act, the opening of the routes inviting applications from intending stage carriage operators. Soon thereafter on 1-10-1980 respondent 3 Hanuman Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd,, one of the existing stage carriage operators in the region filed a revision petition before the 1st respondent-Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) challenging the legality of the resolution passed by the RTA opening the six routes as per its resolution dated 19 7 1980. Similarly, respondents 5 to 8 also filed revision petitions before the Tribunal challenging the legality of the resolution passed by the RTA under sub sec. (3) of S. 47 of the Act. On 6-9- 1980 the petitioner in WP No. 23610/1980 filed his application under S. 57 (2) (latter part) of the Act. Similarly, the petitioner in WP No. 23806/1980 filed his application before the 2nd respondent- RTA also on 6 9 1980. These applications along with other applications were duly advertised in accordance with the requirement of sub-sec. (3) of S. 57 of the Act. On 9 10 1980 the 2nd respondent-RTA published the applications inviting objections On 21-10 1980 among others the 3rd respondent filed its objections. While doing so, it brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent-RTA as well as the applicants that a revision petition was pending before the Tribunal under S. 64A of the Act challenging the very opening of the routes, including other objections as well. When the matter stood thus for consideration on 5-12-1980 by the RTA, on 4-12-1980 it received a communication indicating that the Tribunal had set aside RTA's resolution No. 12/SO 81 (Annexure A) and the matter was remanded to the RTA for fresh consideration and decision in accordance with law. In that circumstance on 5-12 1980, the RTA dropped further proceedings under S. 57 (2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the dec sion of the RTA not to proceed further in the matter of granting permits on the six routes opened, the petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal setting aside the aforementioned resolution of the 2nd respondent- RTA on the sole ground that the order passed by the Tribunal dated 4-12 1980 was illegal and unsustainable in law in as much as the same was passed without hearing the parties who were likely to be affected by it as enjoined in the 3rd proviso to S. 64A of the Act.

(3.) The respondents have entered appearance and have resisted the prayer made by the petitioners for quashing the order of the Tribunal dated 4-12 1980, a true copy of which is produced as Annexure C to the petition. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 has produced the records of the case.