Allowed

S B Shadakshara Reddy v. Additional Commissioner of Transport and Secretary Ksta

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2022WP/642/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a preliminary hearing, the Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition challenging orders allowing stage carriage operation under new timings agreed in a joint memo. The court modified the Tribunal's direction to permit operation according to the original timings assigned by the authority.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is permitted to operate the Stage Carriage Permit according to the existing timings assigned by the First Respondent via endorsement dated 29.08.2019.

S B Shadakshara Reddy Vs Additional Commissioner of… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

:: 1 ::

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.642 OF 2021 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

S.B. Shadakshara Reddy S/o S.H.Bheemanna Aged about 47 years K.K.Pura Molakalmuru Taluk Chitradurga District - 577 536

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri B.R.Sundara Raja Gupta, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Additional Commissioner of Transport and Secretary-KSTA 1^st Floor, ‘A’ Block TTMC Building, Shanthinagar Bengaluru – 560 027

¶13

Syed Anwar S/o Syed Ubaidulla Aged about 50 years S.R.Express, Bellary Road Nayakanahatti Challakere Taluk Chitradurga District-577 536

¶14

M.C.Basavarajappa S/o Late Channabasappa Aged about 49 years

¶15

:: 2 ::

¶16

Soradahalli, Jagaluru Taluk Davanagere District-577 001

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

(By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B G, AGA for R1; Sri A.S.Parasara Kumar, Advocate for R2 & R3)

¶19

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Appeals No.342 and 358/2019 dated 01.01.2021 vide Annexure-D by issued of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction.

¶20

This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court passed the following:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

On a joint memo filed by the petitioner and the second respondent, the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos.342/2019 and 358/2019, allowed the appeals and remanded the matter to the first respondent for considering the re-assigning of timings in favour of the petitioner and further the petitioner herein was permitted to operate stage carriage permit according to old timings already assigned, till the decision is taken by the first respondent-

¶23

:: 3 ::

¶24

authority. Taking exception to the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner

¶26

submits that the permit granted in favour of the petitioner to operate stage carriage permit in accordance with old timings already assigned is contrary to the joint memo filed by the parties, wherein, the parties have agreed that the petitioner herein may be permitted to operate the stage carriage permit in accordance with the existing timings as per the endorsement dated 29.08.2019 passed by the first respondent. Hence I pass the following:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Writ petition is allowed.

¶29

The impugned direction No.VIII issued by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Appeals No.342/2019 and 358/2019 is modified.

¶30

:: 4 ::

¶31

The petitioner is permitted to operate Stage Carriage Permit according to the existing timings assigned by the first respondent-Authority vide endorsement dated 29.08.2019 at Annexure-B. To this extent, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is modified.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Kmv/-

S B Shadakshara Reddy v. Additional Commissioner of Transport and Secretary Ksta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S B Shadakshara Reddy v. Additional Commissioner of Transport and Secretary Ksta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Nandini Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Ambika G Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Bambino Associates Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Abdul Rawoof Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Sri H R Renuka Prasad Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Khoday India Limited Vs Excise Commissioner