SMT. K.J. NIRMALA AND OTHERS Vs. THE SECRETARY, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vijay Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri M.E. Nagesh appearing for petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri D. Ashwathappa, for respondent 1 and Sri Hareesh Bhandary, learned Counsel appearing for State Transport Undertaking (for short 'STU'). By consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, these writ petitions are heard finally and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The Order passed by the State Appellate Tribunal on an interlocutory application I.A. No. 1 in R.P. Nos. 166, 167 and 168 of 2016, dated 10-6-2016 as per Annexures-P, Q and R has been called in question. It is the contention of Sri Vijaya Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners that Appellate Tribunal erred in staying operation of order passed by the State Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'STA') where under petitioners were granted temporary permits even after noticing that Notification dated 5-8-2015 and vires of the Act No. 1 of 2016 is under challenge before this Court and temporary permits granted to petitioners by the STA, was in exercise of power under Sec. 87(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which indisputedly enables the petitioners to run their buses in the routes which they had been operating for past 40 years and as such Tribunal could not have stayed the operation of order granting temporary permits since Sec. 87(1)(d) of the Act provides for grant of temporary permits when application for renewal of the permit is kept pending.

(3.) Per contra, Sri Hareesh Bhandary, learned Counsel appearing for second respondent-STU and learned Government Advocate would support the impugned order by contending that STA having noticed that there was no interim order in favour of petitioners in the earlier round of litigation, still granted temporary permits under Sec. 87(l)(d) which fact came to be noticed by the Revisional Authority and as such it has rightly stayed the operation of orders of STA granting permits in favour of the petitioners and there is no error committed by the Tribunal in this regard and hence they pray for rejection of writ petitions.