T M MADDUNAPPA Vs. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the propriety of the judgment and order of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (Respondent- 2) dated 6-4- 1987 vide Annexure-E remitting the matter back to the Karnataka State Transport Authority, Bangalore, (Respondent-1) with a direction to return the application of the grantee (petitioner in this writ petition) for rectification of the defect.

(2.) The material facts of the case are : The petitioner filed an application on 21-10-1978 for grant of Stage Carriage Permit on the route Challakere to Chikkajogihalli viz Talak, E.G. Kere, Kondlahalli, Molakalmuru, Rayadurga and back Molakalmuru and Soorenahalli for performing one round trip. Together with the application, the petitioner annexed the proposed timings and a rough sketch. The application was published by the State Transport Authority in the Karnataka Gazette dated 23-11-1978 inviting objections. The application was considered by the State Transport Authority at its meeting in Subject No. 13/85 on 27/28-1-1983. Respondents-3 to 5 raised several contentions objecting to the grant of the permit in favour of the petitioner. The main objection was that not only the application was defective, but also the Gazette notification. Another contention was that no need existed for grant of stage carriage permit and that the portion of the route between Molakalmuru and Rayadurga overlaps the notified routes of A.P.S.R.T.C. According to the petitioner, the contention regarding the defective nature of the application and the Gazette notification was taken for the first time only at the time of consideration of the application and not earlier. After hearing the rival contenders, the State Transport Authority gave a finding that none of the objectors has prejudiced by the alleged defects and that the scheme published by the A.P.S.R.T.C. does not have extra territorial operation. As regards need for grant of permit, the existence of need was accepted by the State Transport Authority. The State Transport Authority also accepted the time schedule as proposed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, permit was granted to him and he commenced the operation of the service in the year 1985.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the State Transport Authority, respondents-3 to 5 preferred appeals to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 685 to 830/85 and 46/86 respectively. At the time of consideration of the applications for interim order filed by the appellants therein, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal assigned interim time schedule and the petitioner continued to operate his service on the basis of the said time schedule. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal heard the appeals on 6 -4-1987 and passed orders allowing the appeals on four issues and deciding the rest in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the findings of the Appellate Tribunal on issues 1 to 4 and also by the operative portion of the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal which reads as follows :