K. SRINIVASA Vs. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THE TAMILNADU STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application filed by the petitioner for grant of inter -State enclave stage carriage permit for the route Anikerehalli to Bangalore via intermediary places, to operate three round trips per day by one vehicle was considered by the State Transport Authority in the meetings held on 27.02.1998 and 02.03.1998 and permit was granted subject to the condition that grant is a single point tax and the Secretary shall harmonise the timings. The Secretary having fixed the schedule of timings, the grant of permit in favour of the petitioner was questioned in R.P. Nos. 1170/2000 and 913/2002, by the KSRTC and Mr. T.V. Nataraj, before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short, the Tribunal). The said revision petitions were allowed by a common order dated 29.12.2007, the impugned orders/grant was set aside and the matter was remanded to the STA to reconsider the application after getting a joint route survey report in the presence of parties and decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with law, having regard to the legal position of granting permits on the enclave routes, in the absence of inter -State agreement between the concerned States. The application having been considered in the meeting held on 02.07.2011, the decision was pronounced on 25.07.2011 by the STA, which resolved to revoke the grant and rejected the application for renewal submitted by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 837/2011 before the KSTAT. The appeal having been dismissed on 20.12.2012, this writ petition has been filed, to quash the order/resolution of the 1st respondent vide Annexure -F and the order passed by the Tribunal vide Annexure -G. Main contention urged by Sri. M.R.V. Achar, learned advocate for the petitioner is that the order/resolution of the 1st respondent as at Annexure -F being bald, the Tribunal though has taken note of the rival contentions, failed to appreciate the contentions and the record of the case and that the impugned orders being unreasoned and arbitrary are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel submitted that the 1st respondent as well as the Tribunal, while passing the impugned orders have merely narrated the case of the parties but have failed to appreciate the rival contentions and record findings, which shows non application of mind and non -consideration of the matter in the correct perspective and thus, the impugned orders being vitiated are liable to be quashed.

(2.) SRI K.A. Ariga, learned AGA and Sri B.N. Jayadeva, learned advocate for respondent No. 2 and Sri Harish Bhandary, learned advocate for respondent No. 3, on the other hand submitted that the impugned orders are considered orders and hence, no interference in the matter is warranted. Learned counsel sought upholding of the impugned orders.

(3.) THE 1st respondent has taken up the matter for consideration pursuant to the order of remand passed by the Tribunal vide Annexure -B. The order passed by the 1st respondent vide Annexure -F shows that the Authority has only taken note of the rival contentions and the facts of the matter before it, pursuant to an order of remand by the Tribunal. However, without consideration of the rival contentions and recording any finding, it held as follows: In view of the above, the Authority resolved to revoke the grant and reject the application filed for renewal. In Appeal No. 837/2011 filed by the petitioner against the said order of the 1st respondent, the Tribunal, except narrating the rival contentions and taking note of the case law, without even formulating a point for consideration and recording any finding, dismissed the appeal. The basic requirement in a judgment passed in an appeal by the Appellate Tribunal is, that it should indicate the reason for rendering the judgment after a brief narration of the facts and then record findings on the basis of the record of the case and as highlighted by the parties, through the learned advocates, in the form of arguments. If the judgment of a Tribunal, passed in exercise of appeal jurisdiction does not contain the said basic ingredients, the Judgment/Order fails, on the touchstone of the same being not in consonance with a reasoned order or a speaking judgment. In the instant case, the order passed by the Tribunal, impugned herein, suffers from the said legal infirmity and hence, is unsustainable. In the result, writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders, as at Annexures - 'F' and 'G' are quashed. Consequently, the matter stands remanded to the 1st respondent for reconsideration and decision in terms of the observations made in the order dated 29.12.2007 passed in R.P. Nos. 1170/2000 and 913/2012 vide Annexure -B. Contentions of both the parties are left open for consideration by the 1st respondent - Authority, which is directed to take up the matter for consideration, if possible, in the meeting scheduled to be held on 20.07.2013 or in the following meeting thereafter and pass order. No costs.