RAJU Vs. KARNATAKA REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are from the common order of Jagannatha Shetty, J, in WPs.2496 and 2497 of 1972. The appellants were the petitioners therein.

(2.) K. Muniswamy and Syed Ibrahim, respondents 4 and 5 respectively, had made an application before the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the RTA) for grant of a permit to operate a stage carriage between Kelamangala and Bangalore. Kelamangala being in Tamil Nadu, the route between these two places is an inter-State route. When the RTA notified that application, Y.K.Rudrappa, father of the appellant in Writ Appeal 870 of 1974, who was one of the operators over a section of that route, and Choodappa, the appellant in Writ Appeal 871 of 1974, who was also one of the operators over a section of that route, filed their objections before the RTA, against grant of such permit. After considering the objections, the RTA by its resolution, rejected the application for grant of such permit. Against that resolution, respondents 4 and 5 herein preferred an appeal to the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the STAT), which dismissed that appeal. Against the order of the STAT, respondents 4 and 5 herein preferred to the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the KRAT), a further appeal in which notices were issued to the objectors before the RTA including Y. K. Rudrappa and Choodappa. A Counsel undertook to appear for Y.K.Rudrappa in that appeal. In the meanwhile Y.K.Rudrappa died on 6-4-1969. His eldest son, Y.R.Raju, the appellant in Writ Appeal 870 of 1974, made an application to the RTA for transfer of the permit held by his father. On 3-5-1969, the RTA ordered transfer of that permit to him and such transfer was effected on 24-5-1969. On 6-9-1972, the power of attorney holder for respondents 4 and 5 herein, filed before the KRAT an application accompanied by an affidavit praying that the name of Y.K.Rudrappa, respondent 11 in that appeal, might be deleted. The material portion of the affidavit reads :

(3.) In the writ petitions, the judgment of the KRAT was assailed on several grounds, the first of which was that it was vitiated on account of the legal representative of deceased Y. K. Rudrappa not having been brought on record in that appeal. It was contended on behalf of Choodappa that the route map appended to the application for the permit, did not correctly set out the, actual positions of intermediate places on the route and that hence that application was not a valid one.