Disposed

Sri. M. N. Veerendra Patil v. the Regional Transport Authority

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2023WP/1019/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider pending applications for change in timings and renewal immediately in the next meeting and inform the petitioners of the decision, rejecting reliance on the Tribunal's earlier dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider pending applications for change in timings and renewal in the next immediate meeting and inform petitioners of the decision.

Sri. M. N. Veerendra Patil Vs the Regional… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:39969 WP No. 1019 of 2023 C/w. WP No.15385 of 2023, WP No.16797 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 1019 OF 2023 (MV) C/W

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 15385 OF 2023 (MV), WRIT PETITION NO. 16797 OF 2023 (MV)

¶8

IN WP NO. 1019/2023

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. M. N. VEERENDRA PATIL S/O P C NAGANAGOUDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS BUS OPERATOR SRI LAKSMI EXPRESS MEDAAGINAKERE JAGALURU TALUK -577006 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶11

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI C RAMESH S/O ANNEPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT CHANNAGIRI DAVANAGERE DISTRICT -577001.

¶13

SRI G R NAGARAJ S/O G RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BUS OPERATOR MADIVALARA BEEDHI CHANNAGIRI

¶14

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT -577 001

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:39969 WP No. 1019 of 2023 C/w. WP No.15385 of 2023, WP No.16797 of 2023

¶17

REPTD BY ITS GPA HOLDER SRI C RAMESH, S/O ANNEPPA BUS OPERATOR AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT CHANNAGIRI DAVANAGERE DISTRICT -577001.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. A S PARASARA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY REPTD BY ITS CHAIRMAN OPP TO SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT DAVANAGERE -577 001.

¶22

THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY OPP TO SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT DAVANAGERE -577 001.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.BHOJEGOUDA T KOLLER., ADVOCATE )

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PASSED BY THE R1 IN SUBJECT NO.A7/2019-20, A8/2019-20, 14/201819, 09/2018-19, 11/2018-19, 10/2018-19, 1/2013-14 DATED 9.6.2022 DECISION PRONOUNCED ON 10.7.2022 VIDE ANNEXURES -A,B,C,D,E,F AND G.QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN REVISION PETITION NOS, 127, 128, 132, 133, 134, 135

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:39969 WP No. 1019 of 2023 C/w. WP No.15385 of 2023, WP No.16797 of 2023

¶28

AND 136/2022 DATED 22.12.2022 IN DISMISSING THE REVISION PETITIONS VIDE ANNEXURE -W.

¶29

IN WP NO. 15385/2023

¶30

BETWEEN:

¶31

. SRI. H. S. MALLIKARJUNA

¶32

S/O. SRI GANGADARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT SASVEHALLI, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER VINAYAKA SHENOY, S/O. VIJAYENDRA SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT SHANTHERI, NEAR SHIVADURGA GANAPATHI TEMPLE, OORU GADURU, SHIMOGA.

¶33

…PETITIONER

¶34

(BY SRI. A S PARASARA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶35

AND:

¶36

THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY OPP. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE-577 001.

¶37

…RESPONDENT

¶38

(BY SRI.BHOJE GOUDA T KOLLER., AGA)

¶39

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER / ENDORSEMENT PASSED BY THE

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:39969 WP No. 1019 of 2023 C/w. WP No.15385 of 2023, WP No.16797 of 2023

¶42

RESPONDENT IN NO.PRASAPRA.DAV/RENL/03-201112/2023-24 DATED 20.6.2023 IN INFORMING THE PETITIONER THAT THE RENEWAL APPLICATIONS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED VIDE ANNX-H.

¶43

IN WP NO. 16797/2023

¶44

BETWEEN:

¶45

SMT NIRMALA VAGESH GOWDA W/O LATE G S VAGESH GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SRI DURGAMBA MOTORS, HONNALE TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577217.

¶46

…PETITIONER

¶47

(BY SRI. A S PARASARA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶48

AND:

¶49

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY DEVARJ URS LAYOUT, OPP SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DAVANAGERE 577217 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶50

THE SECRETARY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT, OPP SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DAVANAGERE 577217.

¶51

…RESPONDENTS

¶52

(BY SRI.BHOJEGOUDA T KOLLER., AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

¶53

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC:39969 WP No. 1019 of 2023 C/w. WP No.15385 of 2023, WP No.16797 of 2023

¶55

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01/07/2023 RECEIVED THROUGH INWARD NO. 4736 WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF THIS COURT VIDE ANNEXURE-P.

¶56

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

The petitioners in the writ petition in W.P. No.1019/2023 have impugned the common order dated 22.12.2022 by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal [for short, ‘the Tribunal’ ] in Revision Petitions in Nos.127, 128, 132-136 of 2022. These petitioners have filed the aforesaid revision petitions calling in question the first respondent’s orders dated 10.07.2022, and the first respondent by similar orders dated 10.07.2022 has resolved to consider these petitioners’ application for change in timings to be taken up in the next meeting. The

¶59

¶60

NC: 2023:KHC:39969 WP No. 1019 of 2023 C/w. WP No.15385 of 2023, WP No.16797 of 2023

¶61

Tribunal has rejected the petitioners’ revision petitions as against these orders on the short ground that the decision to defer consideration of the applications for change of timings would not be amenable to the revisionary jurisdiction.

¶62

The petitioner in the writ petition in W.P. No.15385/2023 has impugned the respondent’s Order/ Endorsement dated 20.06.2023 [Annexure-H]. The respondent has issued this Order/ Endorsement dated 20.06.2023 informing this petitioner that the renewal applications cannot be considered. The petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondent to consider the renewal applications dated 12.06.2023 and 16.06.2023 [Annexures-C and D]. The petitioner in the writ petition in W.P. No.16797/2023 has also prayed for direction to the second respondent to consider the representation dated 01.07.2023 [Annexure-P].

¶63

¶64

NC: 2023:KHC:39969 WP No. 1019 of 2023 C/w. WP No.15385 of 2023, WP No.16797 of 2023

¶65

3. Sri A S Parasara Kumar, the learned

¶66

counsel for the petitioners, submits that during the pendency of the writ petitions, there was a meeting of the first respondent on 26.10.2023 and even in this meeting, the first respondent has deferred consideration of the applications. Sri A S Parasara Kumar further submits that the petitioners’ grievance could be addressed if there is a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioners’ application for revision in the timings within a time frame.

¶67

4. Sri Bhojegouda T Koller, the learned

¶68

Additional Government Advocate, is heard in the light of these submissions, and he is unable to controvert that the petitioners’ applications which are filed from the year 2013-14 have been pending consideration with repeated deferments and that the last of such deferment is on 23.10.2023. This Court is of the considered view that the law requires consideration of the applications in accordance with law, and the

¶69

¶70

NC: 2023:KHC:39969 WP No. 1019 of 2023 C/w. WP No.15385 of 2023, WP No.16797 of 2023

¶71

petitioners must also be informed about the result of such consideration so that they are not left without any remedy. If the decision is not to grant any change in the timings but that is sought to be conveyed by the repeated deferment of due consideration, this Court must observe that it tantamount denial of remedy.

¶72

Therefore, the petitions stand disposed of

¶73

calling upon the concerned respondent to consider the petitioners’ pending applications in accordance with law in the next scheduled meeting, or without fail in the immediate meeting thereafter and inform the petitioners about the decision therein notwithstanding the orders of the Tribunal.

¶74

SD/JUDGE

¶75

AN/-

Sri. M. N. Veerendra Patil v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M. N. Veerendra Patil 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maneyamma Vs a Kankasabapathi

Lord Ayyappan Trust Vs Sri. K Suresh

Nagarathnamma Vs Rajammanni

Smt. T Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. T R Mehrunnissa Vs M N Muniswamy Reddy

M/S Tata Capital Financial Service Limited Vs Sri E N Prakasha