M CKRISHNA MURTHY Vs. MYSORE REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is operating his stage carriage on the route between Yedavani and Bangalore, the major part of which lies within the region of the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore. On November 6, 1961 he made an application to that Regional Transport Authority for the extension of his route. What he wanted to do was to proceed from Yedavani to a point called Bheemanahalli via Devalapura in continuation of the existing route. That application was considered by the Regional Transport Authority and allowed. From that decision of the Regional Transport Authority respondent 4 who is an operator between Nagamangala and Bangalore and who opposed the petitioner's application for the extension of the route, appealed to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and that appeal was allowed. The petitioner's further appeal to the Revenue Appellate Tribunal was dismissed and so it is that he is before us now.

(2.) THE route which was common to the petitioner and respondent 4 before the extension was granted by the Regional Transport Authority was the route between Bangalore and Yedavani. Respondent 4 was proceeding on his return journey from Yedavani to Devalapura and further to Nagamangala. The extended route which was allowed by the Regional Transport Authority and which lies between Yedavani and Bheemanahalli touches Devalapura which is also touched by respondent 4 on his journey between Yedavani and Nagamangala. The contention of respondent 4 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was that he would be affected by the extension granted by the Regional Transport Authority. The view expressed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was that there was no need for the extension prayed for by the petitioner since Bheemanahalli was a small village situate about a couple of miles away from Devalapura and that there was really no need for the establishment of a stage carriage service for that short distance. It appears also to have been of the view that, since the stage carriage service of respondent 4 was proceeding from Yedavani to Devalapura. that route was sufficiently served.

(3.) IN the appeal which was preferred from that decision of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to the Revenue Appellate Tribunal, the only question which was considered by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal was whether there had been disobedience to the rules made by the Government under Sec. 63(1). On that question the finding recorded by it was against the petitioner. It was for that reason that the Revenue Appellate Tribunal did not proceed to consider the further question whether the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was right in recording a finding that there was no need for the extension prayed for by the petitioner. What the Revenue Appellate Tribunal however did was to remit the matter to the Regional Transport Authority so that the Regional Transport Authority may, after observance of the procedure prescribed by the rules made under Sec. 63(1), deal with the application presented by the petitioner afresh and according to law.