V C BASAVANNA Vs. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts leading to this Writ Petition are that the petitioner is the holder of stage carriage permit No. 10/96 -97 operating on the route Yakanur to Kayamballi. The 3rd respondent was granted with stage carriage permit by the 2nd respondent under subject No. 173/93 -94 dated 3.11.1993 with a direction to the Secretary to assign timing and issue the permit within 30 days from the date of the timings proceedings. Notwithstanding the fact that the RTA fixed the timings as on 1.2.1994 and directed to produce the documents and obtain the permit within 30 days thereafter as per the resolution, the 3rd respondent has not produced the same. He had not obtained the permit even upto 1995 nor had he made any application under Rule 65 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, (for short 'the Rules') seeking extension of time in the year 1994. Therefore, the 2nd respondent under subject No. 110/94 -95 dated 27.1.1995 revoked the sanction of permit granted under Rule 65 of the Rules as per Annexure A. As against it, the 2nd respondent preferred revision petition in R.P. 275 of 95 and for a period of 4 years no attempt was made either to produce the documents or to obtain permit. Thereafter, the K.S.A.T. while exercising jurisdiction under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, allowed the revision petition and granted time upto 29.5.1999 as per Annexure B. Subsequently also the respondent did not obtain the permit within 29.5.1999 as per the order under Annexure. B. Therefore, on his application, the Tribunal has further extended the time till 30.6.1999 as per Annexure C. This order is questioned by the petitioner who is an existing operator under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The 3rd respondent also filed his detailed objections.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel Mr. B.R.S. Gupta for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. M.R.V. Achar for R -3.

(3.) HOWEVER , the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 contended that it is a case where the RTA has withdrawn the order of granting the permit as he has not obtained the permit within the stipulated time. Therefore, the revision petition is maintainable. He also while emphasising his arguments submitted that as against such orders, only revision petitions were entertained hitherto and this objection was not raised by anyone before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction as provided under the Act. Therefore, it does not call for interference by this Court.