B. MUDDUKRISHNA Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The rejection of petitioner's application for renewal of permit No. 63/2000-01 by order dated 17.10.2011 pronounced on 22.11.2011 of the Regional Transport Authority, Davanagere, led to the filing of appeal No. 1304/2011 before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The contentious issue before the appellate tribunal was, "Whether the petitioner did operate services on 01.04.2002 so as to be termed a saved operator under the Bellary Modified Scheme dated 24.07.2003"? The Tribunal after having extracted the relevant portion of the modified Bellary scheme dated 24.07.2003, in its order dated 02.06.2012, Annexure-E observed that petitioner did not operate the services on 01.04.2002 hence, did not comply with the statutory requirement under the modified scheme to be termed a saved operator and accordingly, rejected the appeal.

(2.) Although learned Counsel for petitioner submits that a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 5590/2012 in the case of G.T. Vijaya Kumar vs. Regional Transport Authority, Davanagere, Annexure-G, observed that in the context of the Bellary Modified Scheme on payment of compounding fee of Rs. 10,000/-, a presumption that the stage carriage was in operation as on 01.04.2002 and hence the permit holder was a saved operator, with great respect is unacceptable in the light of the observations of the Apex Court in Mithilesh Garg vs. Union of India, 1992 AIR(SC) 443 which reads thus:

(3.) Again in the admitted fact that the petitioner permit holder did not operate the services as on 01.04.2002, hence did not comply with the precedent to be termed a saved operator under the Bellary Modified Scheme. Moreover, the said scheme does not provide for payment of penalty to entitle the petitioner for a presumption that the stage carriage was in operation as on 01.04.2002 so as to term the petitioner as a saved operator.