B SRINIVASA REDDY Vs. R T A CHITRADURGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 31st July, 1976, the petitioner made an application before the Regional Transport Authority, Chitradurga (Respondent NO. 1), for grant of a stage carriage permit On the route Chikkabadihalli to Kadur via., Thippareddihaliy, Oblapura, Jajur, C.R.Jajur, Nagondanahally, Karikere, Meerasabihalli, Dodderi, Challakere, Ganjugunte, Madhure, Sondekere, J. N. Kote, D. S. Hally, Kurubarahatty, Chitradurga,, Chitrahally, C. R. Eachagatta, H. D. Pura, Nakikere, Kittadahally, Madadkere, Hosadurga, Antharagatte, Tamatadahaily Gate, Sollapura, Hirenallur and Giriyapura for one return trip or two single trips per day. This application, was duly published as required by S. 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'). Sixteen operators including the General Manager, Karnataka, State Road Transport Corporation, filed objections. The first respondent considered the appication in subject No. 88/77 and came to the conclusion that there was a need for grant of a permit far running a stage carriage service, on the route, in question and accordingly granted the stage carriage permit by the Resolution dated! 27-1-1978. As against the said order, the respondents 3 to 11 filed appeals before the. K. S. T. A. T. (respondent Nor 2), in Appeal No. 100, 101, 102, 114 and 116 of 1978. The second respondent, by the order dated 23rd, August 1578, (has allowed the appeal and has get aside the resolution of the first respondent granting the permit to the petitioner and it has further remitted the application to the R.T.A. with a direction to renotify the application immediately and to cali for objections and also to get the route survey conducted in accordance with the guide lines issued by the Tribunal and to get a report about the ctnnditions of the road from the Public Works Department and to dispose of the matter after hearing the parties concerned. It is the correctness of this order of remand that has been challenged in this writ petition. The 2nd respondent-KSTAT will hereinafter be referred to as the Tribunal.

(2.) Shri P.R. Srirangaiah, the learned Advqcate appearing for the petitioner contended that the findings recorded by the Tribunal that there was no correct schedule of timings mentioned in the notification and that the correct route was not mentioned in the notification and that the RTA has not ascertained the condition of the route and that the procedure followed by the RTA was oppqsed to Rule 92(2) of the Karnataka, Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') are not tenable in law. The lealrned Counsel also, further contended that in view of the findings recorded by the RTA that there is a need for introducing the service and that the route is motorable throughout the year, the order of the 2nd respondent is not sustainable and as such, the same be quashed and the Order of the RTA granting the stage carriage permit be restored.

(3.) On the contrary, the learned Counsel appearing for the respon pondenits, submitted that though the application, was published, but the same was not in accordance with the provisions contained) in 9. 57(3) of the Act, inasmuch as the time, schedule as well as the route was not correctly notified as per the application filed by the petitioner and thereby, the objectors were misguided. It was also further contended that when the matter was reserve for judgment, it was not at all open, for the RTA to collect the additional material and to pass the final order on the basis of that additional material. Furtner, it was submitted that the Executive Engineer who was a member of the RTA has not made any report to the eftect that the road was motor-worthy; that the publication of the application not being in accordance with the provisions of S 57(3) of the Act, and the failure to compiy with the mandatory provisions of S. 17(3) of the Act has resulted in the failure of justice as such, it is not saved by S. 134(2) of the Act. It was also contended, on behalf of the respondents that a portion of the route Kadur to Giriyapura cross overlaps the notified route and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of permit prayed for.