KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE K.H.ROAD Vs. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY DAVANAGERE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - KSRTC is impugning the order dated 15.5.2018 passed in R.P.Nos.140 to 159, 162 to 165/2018 so far as it pertains to the grant of permit in the route between Davangere and Challakere vide Subject No.409 to 414 of RTA Meeting dated 21.12.2016. It is stated that the application of the petitioner was considered and grant was made to operate the buses by the petitioner - KSRTC. Even before the timings could be fixed for that, the said grant was subject matter of challenge by several persons in Revision Petition No.140/2018 and connected matters on the file of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which came to be allowed and disposed of by order dated 15.5.2018. Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner has come up in these writ petitions on the ground that the order impugned is erroneous inasmuch as the same is passed considering a technical glitch in not furnishing the particulars sought in column Nos.15 to 18 of the application, which was filed by the petitioner before the KSTAT seeking grant of permission to operate in the said route.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in strict sense, the particulars sought for in column Nos.15 to 18 of the application for grant of permission is irrelevant so far as the petitioner - Corporation is concerned inasmuch as the permit, which is sought, is in respect of a portion of monopoly route. Therefore, furnishing the said particulars is not called for. However, taking that as one of the grounds, the permit itself is rejected even before it is considered whether the said permit would come in the way of alleged revision petitioners, who claim themselves as rival operators.

(3.) After hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as the contesting respondents including the learned Government Pleader for the State, this Court is of the considered opinion that a serious error is committed by the KSTAT while considering the grant of permit. When some columns were left open without being filled up, KSTAT before considering the application should have called upon the petitioner to complete the application in respect of all particulars, which are sought and thereafter the same should have been taken up for consideration.