B GANGADHARAIAH Vs. KAR S T A T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P.No.11430/78 is an operator of stage carriage services on the routes Tumkur to Hindupur and Tumkur to Gowribidanur. The petitioner in W. P. No. 11431/78 is an operator of a stage carriage service on the route Shravandahalli to Gowribidanur via Tumkur. The petitioner in W.P. No. 11432/78 is an operator of a stage carriage service on the route Thondebhavi to Tumkur via Holavanahally, Akkirampura and Koratagere.

(2.) The 3rd respondent applied for a grant of stage carriage permit on the route Gowribidanur to Tumkur to operate it as an express service with three halts. The R.T.A. notified the application and called for objections. After hearing the objectors, the R.T.A. came to the conclusion that there was a need for granting the express service on the route applied for by the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, by the resolution dated 10-4-1975 in Subject No. 358/74-75 the R.T.A., Tumkur, granted the stage carriage permit with three halts namely, at Byrenahally cross, Holavanahally and Koratagere. On the basis of the said grant, the timings also came to be assigned by the R.T.A. on 17th May 1975. While assigning the timings, the Secretary, R.T.A., came to the conclusion that in view of the fact that the service of the 3rd respondent being an express service, he was not allowed to pick up any passenger of set down any passenger on the common routes covered by the stage carriage permits held by the petitioners in these petitions. Thereafter, the R.T.A. by its resolution dated 14-8-1975, on the basis of the representation made by the M.L.A., Koratagere, has granted two more halts at Akkirampura and Somapura to the stage carriage permit of the 3rd respondent. It is not in dispute that before passing of the aforesaid resolution dated 14-8-1975, produced at Ext.-C, the petitioners were not notified and were not afforded an opportunity of being heard.

(3.) Shri M. Rangaswamy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that at the time of granting the stage carriage permit, the petitioners being the objectors and their objections were heard and the permit came to be granted as an express service and thereafter the variation in the conditions of permit affecting the interest of the petitioners should not have been made without affording an opportunity to the petitioners. It was also further contended that by providing two more halts at Akkirampura and Somapura, the services of the petitioners have been affected inasmuchas, as per the conditions attached to the permit granted by the resolution dated 10-4-1975, the service of the 3rd respondent was to be an express service and he was not permitted to pick up or set down any passenger on the common routes ; but now, by granting of two more halts on the common route, the 3rd respondent has been enabled to pick up and set down passengers, who were intended to travel in the services of the petitioners and thereby the services of the petitioners have been adversely affected and as such, the order pissed by the R.T.A., dated 14-8-1975 without affording an opportunity to the petitioner even though it affected the interests of the petitioners was not legal, and as such, it is liable to be quashed.