Petitioner challenged the State Transport Authority and ST Appellate Tribunal orders regarding bus timings. The Court found no overlap between petitioner and second respondent timings, dismissing the claim to quash order allowing second respondent's route alterations under Rule 56 of MVC Rules 1989.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2894 OF 2022 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SMT. S.G..UMAMAHESHWARI AGED 52 YEARS W/O S P GANESH NO 07/11 MAHADESHWARA COLLEGE ROAD INDUSTRIAL AREA KOLLEGAL CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT 571440.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M E NAGESH.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.BHOJEGOUDA T KOLLER., AGA FOR R1; SRI. A.S. PARASARA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
NC: 2023:KHC:37793 WP No. 2894 of 2022
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ACT AND SECRETARY KSTA DATED 23.8.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND THAT OF THE ORDER OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 19.12.2020 IN APPEAL NO.359/2019 AS PE ANENXUREC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, who holds Stage Carriage Permit to operate between Sathyamangalam and Kollegal, is aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2020 in appeal Nos.301 & 359/2019 on the file of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, ‘ the Tribunal’ ]. The petitioner has filed these appeals before the Tribunal calling in question the State Transport Authority’s decision dated 31.07.2019 and the first respondent’s order dated 23.08.2019. The Tribunal has rejected both the appeals primarily on the ground that the petitioner, who had stated that he would not be affected by the challenge in the timings granted to the second
NC: 2023:KHC:37793 WP No. 2894 of 2022
respondent, will be estopped from calling in question both the orders and that given the time gap between the time slot allotted to the petitioner and the second respondent, the petitioner cannot have any grievance.
NC: 2023:KHC:37793 WP No. 2894 of 2022
statement made before the first respondent. This Court must observe that the second respondent does not very seriously contest that such statement is made though a certain distinction is attempted contending that the statements must be construed as a statement of fact given the difference in timings.
the petitioner, submits, emphasizing that there are seven operators on the same route, that this Court must interfere with the impugned order on the following two grounds:
[a] The second respondent’s permit is saved by the notification dated 29.03.2023 and the subsequent notification, and because it is a saved permit there cannot be any change in the conditions of the permit including change in timings,
[b] The second respondent cannot dispute that the initial departure for his services from
Sathyamangalam was at 12.45 p.m. and this is altered to 01.30 pm and now to 1.40 pm.
The frequent change in timings, without a strong reason, would be detrimental to the commuting public as well as the operators operating the routes.
NC: 2023:KHC:37793 WP No. 2894 of 2022
the peculiarities of the case keeping in mind the interest of the commuting public as also the other operators. However, in the present case, the petitioner’s vehicle starts from Sathyamangalam one and half hours after the departure of the second respondent’s vehicle, and therefore, there is no reason for interference in this case on such ground.
Hence, the petition therefore stands rejected.
SD/JUDGE
SA ct:sr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere to grant a timetable change when there is no overlap in service timings.
Whether a permit holder being estopped by previous statements prevents questioning of orders regarding timing allocations.
Whether frequent changes in operator timings without strong reasons harm public interest.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
SMT. S.G..UMAMAHESHWARI
THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
G SHIVARAM
B M SHYAM PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
