Allowed

Sri MD Zabiulla v. the Regional Transport Authority

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2022WP/9440/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition seeking to quash an order of the State Transport Tribunal. The Tribunal had wrongly dismissed the petitioner's application for impleading in an appeal involving permit cancellation, ignoring his status as an interested party under Rule 90 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Tribunal order dated 30.4.2022 quashed; Petitioner's impleading application allowed.

Sri MD Zabiulla Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.9440 OF 2022 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MD ZABIULLA S/O MOHAMMED SALEEM, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, PROP. MERCHANT MOTOR SERVICE, KOBRIPETE, HOSADURGA.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI MOHAMED SUBHANULLA SHARIEF C., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CHITRADURGA REGION, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, NEAR AISHWARYA HOTEL, V.P. EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶13

SMT. E.D. KUSUMA W/O E.V. DHANYA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, PROP. VIJAYA MOTOR SERVICE, HOSADURGA, CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. JYOTHI BHAT, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI A.S. PARASARA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT TRIBUNAL DATED 30.04.2022 AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN APPEAL NO.67/2021 ON IA NO.3 AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The 2nd respondent filed an appeal in Appeal No.67/2021 before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short `Tribunal'), Bangalore, challenging the endorsement dated 25.1.2019 issued by the 1st respondent canceling the permit issued in favour of the 2nd respondent. In the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application for impleading stating that on the objection submitted by the impleading applicant, the 1st respondent cancelled the permit issued in favour of the petitioner. The Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner is not a necessary party to the lis between the 2nd respondent and the Authority. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶21

I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

¶23

Rule 90 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short `Rules') specifies that after the State Tribunal has admitted an appeal, it shall give an intimation to the person likely to be effected by the grant of the relief prayed for and such appellant, respondent or the person interested shall appear before the Tribunal in person or through authorised representative with original documents or records pertaining to the case on the appointed date and place of the hearing, if any. The Tribunal ignoring the fact that the order impugned before it was passed on the objection submitted by the petitioner and the interest of the petitioner will be affected if the relief sought for in the appeal is granted in favour of the 2nd respondent herein has dismissed the application. Hence, the application filed for impleading by the petitioner is maintainable since he is a necessary party as specified under Rule 90 of the Rules. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶26

ii) The impugned order dated 30.4.2022 in Appeal

¶27

No.67/2021 on I.A.No.3 at Annexure-H passed by the Tribunal is

¶28

¶29

hereby quashed and application filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.III is hereby allowed.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

BKM

Sri MD Zabiulla v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri MD Zabiulla v. the Regional Transport Authority

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

Sri S C Jayachandra Vs the Anti Corruption Bureau

P S Ayub @ Bommanahalli Babu Vs State of Karnataka

P S Ayub @ Bommanahalli Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ramanjinappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Dharmappa N N Vs State of Karnataka

Sri a Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka