KHURUSHEED BEGAUM Vs. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition arises out of the impugned order vide Annexure-B dated 25-2-1988 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, allowing Appeal No. 242 of 1984 on its file and remitting the case to the Regional Transport Authority, Kolar, for consideration afresh and disposal in accordance with law after the grantee places the materials with regard to all the intermediary places on the route in question and after the R.TA. gets a route survey conducted by the Secretary, R.T.A. in the presence of the grantee as well as the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (appellant before the Transport Appellate Tribunal).

(2.) The petitioner was an applicant for grant of a fresh stage carriage permit before the R.T. A. in respect of the route Bangalore to Kolar on an interior route. The said application was notified in the Karnataka Gazette and objections were invited. Thereafter, the R.T.A. considered the application in subject No. 134/82 dated 3-12-1983 and, after hearing all the objectors, granted the stage carriage permit in favour of the petitioner, vide Annexure-A, which contains the resolution. Before the R.T.A., the contention of respondent-3 which is the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation was that the route in question overlaps the notified route under the Kolar Pocket Scheme. But, according to the petitioner, it was not a case of overlapping, but it was only a case of inter-sections at the terminal points of the village limits, Taluk head-quarters and District head-quarters. The contention of the petitioner was accepted and permit granted. Against this order, respondent-3 preferred Appeal No. 242 of 1984 before the Transport Appellate Tribunal. After hearing the Counsels for both the parties, the Transport Appellate Tribunal passed the following order:

(3.) The petitioner is not happy with the order passed by the Transport Appellate Tribunal and she has specifically questioned the order directing the R.TA. to get a route survey conducted by the Secretary in the presence of the grantee and also respondent- 3 and then to decide the matter. In short, the grievance of the petitioner is that the Transport Appellate Tribunal was not justified in remitting the matter back to the R.T.A. for the purpose of getting a route survey conducted and to pass a fresh order on the basis of the report therein. According to the petitioner, the Transport Appellate Tribunal itself could have got the route survey conducted and, instead of remitting the case back to the R.TA. could have proceeded to pass orders on the basis of the route survey report.