RAHAMATHULLA Vs. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 11th September, 1984 passed by the first respondent in Revision Petition No. 63/83 (Annexure-C). The petitioner holds a stage carriage Permit No.P. St.P.1/78-79 valid upto 31-3-1986 covered by the vehicle bearing No, MYK. 4069 for the routes (1) Agaram to Mulbagal via Koladevi trips, (2) Mulbagal to K. Byapally via Alangur-2 trips; (3) Mulbagal to Ugani via Nangali-1 trip. He has applied for variation of the conditions of the permit by curtailment of first round trip on the route Agaram to Mulbagal via Kola-devi and by inclusion of the new route from Agaram to Sreenivasapura, After following the required procedure, the R.T.A. (2nd respondent) has curtailed the first round trip on the route Agaram to Mulbagal and has granted the inclusion of the route from Agaram to Sreenivasapura, by its resolution dated 3rd May, 1982 passed in Subject No, 5/82 (Annexure-B). The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (respondent-4) was not one of the objectors. Similarly, respondent-3 (Sri Y. Ramaiah Shetty) also was not an objector. Nevertheless, Sri Y. Ramaiah Shetty preferred an appeal bearing No. 490/82 against the aforesaid grant of variation of the conditions of permit before the first respondent. The appeal preferred by the 4th respondent was converted as Revision Petition No. 63 of 1983, as the 4th respondent was not an objector. As far as the Appeal No. 490/82 was concerned, a joint memo was filed by the appellant therein and also the grantee of the variation of the conditions of permit on 5.9.1984 for confirming the grant of variation of conditions of the permit and for assigning the modified timings. From para2 of the order of the first respondent, it is clear that the said joint memo has been allowed. However, a common order was passed both on the appeal preferred by the 3rd respondent and also the revision preferred by the 4th respondent. The first respondent came to the conclusion that since there was overlapping of the notified route included in the Kolar Pocket Scheme, the grant of variation from Agaram to Sree nivasapura was not permissible in law. Accordingly, the first respondent allowed the revision petition and set aside the variation of the conditions of the permit granted by the 2nd respondent by inclusion of the route Agaram to Sreenivasapura.

(2.) Sri Shanthamallappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that the revision filed before the first respondent was not maintainable as the resolution granting the variation of the conditions of the permit was an appeasable order and as no appeal was preferred, the first respondent was not competent to revise the order; in other words, the Revision Petition was not maintainable. It is also further submitted that even on merits also, the first respondent was not right in holding that there was overlapping, where as it was only an inter section.

(3.) The points that arise for consideration in this Petition, are as follows: