H K KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 24th June 1974, the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) issued a notification under S.57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, (shortly called 'the Act') inviting applications for the grant of stage carriage permits on the route "Mysore to Koudehalli and back". The Gazette notification shows that it was signed by the in-charge Secretary of the RTA. In response to the said notification, respondents 2 to 18 submitted their applications. The petitioner was one among the objectors opposing the grant of the proposed permits. On 11th June, 1975, the applications came up for consideration before the RTA. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection that the notification issued under S.57(2) was invalid, since it was issued by the ir-charge Secretary who was incompetent to perform the statutory functions under the Act. That objection was based on the well known principle that a person in-charge of a statutory office can only perform the day to day routine works and not the statutory functions. The RTA accepted that objection and directed the return of the applications to the concerned applicants under Rule 100 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. The applicants, however, did not take back the applications, which, therefore remained on the file of the RTA.

(2.) After llth June, 1975, on which day the RTA made the above order, a similar question relating to the validity of the notification issued by the in-charge Secretary of the RTA carne up for consideration before this Court in Nanjappa M. v. Karnataka STATE, 1975 2 KarLJ. 258. in which it was observed that such notification would not be invalid since the RTA only performs a ministerial act by issuing any such notification. The above decision was brought to the notice of the members of the RTA by some of the applicants to show that the view taken by the RTA in its order dated 11th June 1975 was incorrect. The RTA then thought that the matter required reconsideration and so it issued notices to all the applicants and also to the objectors stating that the applications of respondents 2 to 18 would be considered on the merits on 1st Septr, 1975. The petitioner along with some others objected to the RTA from reconsidering its earlier decision stating that it has no jurisdiction to review its own order. It is said that on 1st Septr, 1975, the RTA heard the parties, considered the merits of the applications, and orally informed the parties that it would grant permits to seme of the applicants. Before the written order was made, the petitioner approached this Gourt with an application under Art.226 of the Constn, praying for a writ of prohibition to restrain the RTA from pronouncing its order, primarily on the contention that the RTA has no power to review its own order.

(3.) The decision on the question, therefore, turns on the scope of the order dated 11th June, 1975 which is set out hereunder: