Partly allowed

Sri Karthikeyan v. the Regional Transport

Karnataka HC28 Jan 2015WP/29618/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a prayer to quash an order at Annexure P as not pressed. It set aside the Appellate Tribunal's order at Annexure Q dismissing an application for condonation of delay, remanding the matter to allow parties to produce copies and refix timings.

What did the court decide?

The order at Annexure P was dismissed; the order at Annexure Q was set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribunal to reconsider it after an opportunity for refixing timings.

Sri Karthikeyan Vs the Regional Transport — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2015

¶3

Before

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH

¶5

Writ Petitions 29618 - 620 / 2011 (MV)

¶6

Between

¶7

1 Sri Karthikeyan, 28 yrs

¶8

S/o Raju

¶9

2 Sri V Venkataswamy, 32 yrs S/o Raju

¶10

Both are r/a # 7/11 Mahadeshwara College Road Chamarajanagar District Petitioners

¶11

(By Sri A S Parasara Kumar, Adv.)

¶12

And

¶13

1 Regional Transport Authority Chamarajanagar By its Chairman

¶14

2 Secretary Regional Transport Authority Chamarajanagar

¶15

3 Sri Likamaram S/o Dhanaram Prop: JBS Bus Service Big Bazar Street, Chamarajanagar

¶16

Respondents

¶17

(By Sri t s Mahantesh, AGA for R2; Sri M R V Achar, Adv. For R3)

¶18

¶19

Writ Petitions are filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying to quash the order dated 8.6.2011 – annexure P in Appeal 319/2011 by the Tribunal, etc.

¶20

The Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this day, Court made the following:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioners are challenging the orders passed at annexures P and Q on 8.6.2011 by the Tribunal dismissing the application filed for condonation of delay.

¶23

The grant of variation of conditions of permit was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal which came to be dismissed. The applications for condonation of delay were not entertained by the Tribunal on the ground that certified copy of the order has not been produced and also on the point of delay.

¶24

Heard the counsel for the respective parties.

¶25

The prayer regarding the impugned order at annexure P is dismissed as not pressed. So far as annexure Q is concerned, submission of the counsel is, though the order copy is produced, on the point of delay it is dismissed. However, regarding variation of condition

¶26

¶27

allowed by the State Transport Authority which was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal, opportunity could have been afforded to produce the certified copy. Delay ought to have been condoned since it is not a unreasonable delay.

¶28

As such, impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is set aside. Matter is remitted to the Tribunal to reconsider the order passed at annexure Q, after affording opportunity to both the parties for refixing the timings according to the convenience of the parties.

¶29

Petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶30

Sd/- Judge

¶31

Sri Karthikeyan v. the Regional Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Karthikeyan v. the Regional Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri U Mahabala Shetty Vs the Karnataka State Transport

Sri C.S Prasad Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

D v Chandrashekar Vs the State Transport Authority

Earth Movers Employees Vs the Principal Secretary

Varalakshmi Vs the Managing Director

Sri v Shivanna Vs State Co-Operative Election Officer