K ANANTHARAJU Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BANGALORE CENTRAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) POWER is filed for all the respondents.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in these cases is that though this Court directed that a route survey be conducted within 4 months in respect of Writ Petition No. 9012 of 1998 and connected cases, nothing is done, while fresh matters 'are being listed for disposal even without compliance with the directions in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v Pauli Govis and Another , regarding a route survey. Respondents 3 to 7 are seeking permits on a route which is common to the petitioner and the route according to the petitioner is a notified route to a distance of nearly 80 kms. and the applications are, apparently, in contravention of the Kolar Pocket Scheme and therefore, it is necessary to issue a writ of prohibition or any other writ, direction or order not to consider the applications of the respondents at the meeting to be held on 11-11-1998 or at any subsequent meetings and grant permits in favour of the applicants and for such other orders.

(3.) THE allegations made in the petition would show that prima facie the route applied overlaps a notified route. It is well established authority that in respect of routes which are overlapping notified routes, the RTA or STA does not get jurisdiction to consider such applications unless the scheme provides for a operation by private operators. In Karnataka State Road Transport corporation v Karnataka State Transport Authority, and R. Venkatesham Chetty v State of karnataka, this Court examined the procedural requirement in situations where notified routes were involved and it has been held that so far as notified routes are concerned, the State transport Undertaking should have prior notice of the application for grant of the permit and should have an opportunity of contesting the claim by filing objections to the application. It has to be emphasized that a mere notice of meeting would not suffice and the State Transport undertaking is entitled to a copy of the application for permit from the RTA concerned and only thereafter the matter should be listed for disposal, after allowing an opportunity to the State transport Undertaking to file its written objections. In the instant case, the agenda does not indicate that the K. S. R. T. C. has been notified of the applications filed by the various applicants. The proceedings at An-nexure-A are therefore in contravention of the decision of this Court in R. Venkatesham Chetty's case, supra.