SHALINI JAIN Vs. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed by the appellant- permit holder aggrieved by the impugned order dated 8-10-2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.28713-28718/2009 in whose favour the Karnataka State Transport Authority (in short the KSTA) granted variation of conditions of the permit with the timings proposed by the permit holder. Another rival operator in the connected appeal is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the same insofar as it relates to extending interim order for the period of 4 weeks on 8-10-2009 as far as the appellant is concerned in respect of the appeal No. 2153/2007 before the KSTA, urging various facts.

(2.) The brief facts are stated for the purpose of examining the rival legal contentions to find out as to whether the order impugned in the writ petitions is legal and valid. The permit holder filed an application before the 1st respondent KSTA seeking for variation of permit No.75/DK/99- 2000 for the route from Mangalore to Karkala via: Kaikamba with proposed timings under Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as 'MV Act' in short). That application came up for consideration before KSTA on 16.12.2003. The said authority resolved to grant variation of condition of permit as sought for by the appellant herein in the first batch of appeals with a direction to the permit holder to obtain the endorsement of variation of permit within 30 days from the date of receipt of proceedings from the Secretary of the KSTA. As per Annexure-D dated 31.7.2004, Endorsement of variation of condition of permit was made by the Secretary of KSTA.

(3.) Being aggrieved of the said resolution, respondent Nos. 2 to 7 filed appeal Nos. 2153, 2176, 2179, 2184 and 2266/07 before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (KSTAT in short) challenging the grant of variation made in favour of appellants permit on 15.11.2003, urging various grounds. According to respondents 2 to 7, the said appeals were filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the resolution from the KSTA and in accordance with Rule 89 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (in short the 'Rules'). Therefore, there is no need for them to file an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals. No doubt, it is a case of respondents 3, 4 and 6 in their appeals affidavits were filed at the time of filing their appeals explaining the delay in approaching the KSTAT. The said appeals were disposed of after hearing them together by passing the common Judgment dated 31.8.2009 with reference to the memo filed by the grantee permit holder on 22.5.2008. it is the case of the grantee permit holder that memo is conditional one. The KSTAT was required to accept the memo either in to to or reject the same or decide the case on merits after considering rival legal contentions urged in the appeals. That has not been done by the KSTAT in the instant case and not decided the appeals on merits. No doubt, the rights of the grantee permit holder and the respondents 2 to 7 the rival operators without there being condonation of delay application filed by them in their appeals and not examined the inordinate delay of nearly four years. The learned Presiding officer adverting to the memo filed by the Appellant herein would have either decided the appeals on merits or accepted the memo in totality filed by her. He has set aside the resolution of the KSTA and remanded the matter to RTA, Dakshina Kannada on the basis of memo filed by the grantee permit holder as she had given up the extension of route from Pumpwell Circle to Nithilapadavu and back one round trip given to her earlier. The extension route sought by the permit holder comes within the intra - State in respect of which RTA has got jurisdiction and therefore it remanded to it for the purpose of harmonising the timings after considering the grievances of Respondent Nos. 2 to 7.