SHIVAPPA U Vs. M KRISHNA BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') dated 6th Sept.- 1980 passed in Appeal No. 114/1980.

(2.) The petitioner was the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal. The appeal befort the 'cribunal came to be filed by one M. Krishna Bhat who is the 1st respondent in the writ petition along with the petitioner and another who were all applicants under S 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in respect of the route Man- galore to Adyanadka via Thokottu, Derlakatte, Manjamadi, Mudipu, Bakrebail, Saletthur, Vittal, Ukkuda, Bullerkatte, Puttur, Periyalthadkha, Torankatte and Moodabail for grant of a stage carriage permit. The Regional Transport Authority, DK, Mangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the 'RTA') 3rd respondent herein who had opened the route, considered the applications in Subject No. 311/79-80 on 3-3 1980 and granted the permit to the petitioner, he having secured the highest number of marks. Aggrieved by the grant in favour of the petitioner, the 1st respondent-Krishna Bhat preferred the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh disposal to the RTA. Aggrieved by that order made on 28 6-1980 the petitioner and the 1st respondent both challenged the correctness of that order in this Court in WPs 10104 and 10191/1980. WP No. 10191/1980 came to be allowed by this Court and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal on merits. In fact, it is useful to set out that portion of the order of Swami, J., which is as follows :-

(3.) In the result, no specific order was made by this Court in WP No. 10104/1980 as the order of the Tribunal had been quashed ia the other writ petition. On remand, the Tribunal in the present impugned judgment has reached more or less the same conclusions and remanded the matter to the RTA for disposal keeping in mind the observations made by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner, for the second time has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution inter alia contending ;