K RAJAVARMA BALLAL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI K. Rajavarma Ballal Petitioner in W. P. No. 31333 of 2003: Sri B. P. Divakara petitioner in W. P. No. 33401 of 2003; The Director, Shimoga Transport company Private Limited and The Gajanana motor Transport Company Limited petitioners in W. P. Nos. 31953-54 of 2003 are before me seeking a direction directing the respondents not to grant/assign timings or issue stage carriage permits unless the routes are formulated or specified as per section 68 (3) (ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 ("the Act," for short ).

(2.) PETITIONERS state that Section 68 (3) (ca)of the Act was enacted providing for formulation of routes for grant of stage carriage permits. Writ petitions were filed in this court in Writ Petition No. 36516 of 2000 and connected matters. This Court by an order dated 27-11-2000, according to the petition averments, disposed of those petitions with certain directions. Writ Appeals were filed by the petitioners therein, and the writ appeals were disposed of by this Court in terms of an order dated 5-2-2001. Thereafter, another petition was filed in Writ Petition No. 26574 of 2002. That petition was dismissed and the appeal was also dismissed. Petitioners, after referring to these judgments, would say that in terms of the statute and in terms of the binding orders of this Court, respondents are duty bound to frame a scheme formulating th routes. According to them, without formulating a scheme or routes in terms of Section 68 of the Act no permits or timings can be granted by the respondents.

(3.) RESPONDENTS have put in appearance. They oppose the prayers of the petitioners. Impleading application is filed in W. P. No. 31333 of 2003. Impleading applicant also opposes the prayers. Respondents say that in identical circumstances this Court has rejected a writ petition on the ground that rival operators cannot be permitted to contend that the authorities must be restrained from issuing permits to the fresh operators. They say that the appeal filed by the petitioners were dismissed. They also say that a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme court is pending.