B A BHAVIKUMAR Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a stage carriage operator, operating his services in Coorg District. He had filed an application for grant of stage carriage permit to operate on the route between Coorg border and Somawarpet, viaKutta, Srimangala, Ponnampet, Gonikoppa, Vtrajpet, Madikere and back, one round trip a day. Since the said application was not considered by the 1st respondent he had filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.17455/2001 to 17459/2001. This Court by the order dated 31.5.2001 directed the Regional Transport Authority, Madikeri, (For short 'RTA') to consider the said application in accordance with law. Thereafter, the R.T.A. considered the application of the petitioner along with several other applications and passed a resolution as per Annexure 'B' on 27.8.2005 resolving to grant permit in favour of the petitioner. Timings have been assigned by the Secretary of the RTA as per Annexure 'D' on 24.9.2005. The permit was issued in favour of the petitioner as per Annexure 'E'. Since there was a mistake in the resolution of the R.T.A., a Corrigendum was been issued as per Annexure 'F', correcting the said mistake.

(2.) The 2nd respondent is a rival stage carriage operator operating his services in Coorg District. He has challenged the grant of the said permit before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short 'the Tribunal') in R.P.No.724/2005 mainly on three grounds. 'First ground is that Corrigendum issued by the 1st respondent is contrary to the rules of natural justice. Secondly, that the permit is contrary to Section 71 (3)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and thirdly, that each page of the resolution was not signed by the Chairman and Members of the R.T.A. Thus, the resolution is illegal and unenforceable in law. The Tribunal has allowed the revision petition and has set aside the permit in question by the impugned order. The petitioner has called in question the said order of the Tribunal in this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Sri. M.R.V. Achar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. H.B. Nagaraja, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri. K. Nagaraja, learned Counsel for respondent No.3.