Disposed

Mrs. Irene Pinto v. the Additional Commissioner for Transport and Secretary

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2024WP/22160/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, existing/sector bus operators, apprehended exclusion from hearing during reassignment of route timings following Tribunal revision orders. Court confirmed Tribunal directives require hearing affected operators and disposed of the petition directing respondent No.1 to consider petitioners' objections before assigning timings.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 directed to consider objections filed by the petitioners before passing any order assigning timings, per Tribunal directions in RP No.34/2019 and R.P.No.24/2021.

Mrs. Irene Pinto Vs the Additional Commissioner for… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:9922 WP No. 22160 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 22160 OF 2021 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MRS. IRENE PINTO W/O XEROME PINTO AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS BUS OPERATOR, PINTO COMPOUND DAMASKATTE HOUSE KINNIGOLY POST MANGALORE -575 001 D.K.

¶8

SRI IBRAHIM K S/O K MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS KOPPALANGADY KAUP UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. MOHAMED SUBHANULLA SHARIEF C, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT AND SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY 1ST FLOOR, TTMC-TMTC BUILDING K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560 027.

¶14

SRI IGNATIOUS C D'SOUZA S/O SRI PETER D'SOUZA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS BUS OPERATOR, ALWYN COTTAGE COMPOUND, PERUMUDE BAJPE MANGALORE -575 004 D K.

¶15

SRI SWARAJ S SHETTY S/O SRI SUNDAR SHETTY

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:9922 WP No. 22160 of 2021

¶18

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS VISWAS FINANCE CORPORATION MAHARAJA BUILDING, MAIDAN ROAD WEST MAIN ROAD, MANGALORE-570 001.

¶19

SRI VENUGOPAL SHETTY S/O LATE KORANGAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS MADDUR HOUSE, KOTEKAR POST MANGALORE-570 001D K.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. B RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1; SRI. A S PARASARA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. R LOKESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN RP NO.34/2019 DATED 1.12.2020 AND R.P.NO.24/2021 DATED 9.8.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND F AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The respondent No.4 herein filed Revision Petition No.34/2019 on the file of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, challenging the order passed by the respondent No.1 herein, by which, the timings were assigned to the service of respondent No.2 for the route Nithalapadavu to Mulki and back was set aside. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 01.12.2020 set aside the order passed by the respondent No.1, and remitted the matter to the respondent No.1 to take a decision afresh in respect of the assignment of timings/variation of permit after hearing the concerned parties, and other existing/sector operators, who may be affected, as per law and procedure.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9922 WP No. 22160 of 2021

¶27

Against the very same order passed by the respondent No.1, the respondent No.3 herein filed Revision Petition No.24/2021, and the Tribunal by order dated 09.08.2021 on the joint memo filed by the parties therein set aside the order passed by the respondent No.1, and directed the respondent No.1 to re-assign the timings in terms of the joint memo after considering the objections filed by the existing/sector operators.

¶28

The apprehension of the petitioners is that the respondent No.1 may re-consider their request for assigning the timings without hearing the petitioners, who are the existing/sector operators. Their apprehension is unfounded, since the Tribunal has specifically directed the respondent No.1 to consider the objections of the existing/sector operators before passing any order assigning timings to the petitioner therein.

¶29

Therefore, the petition stands disposed of directing the respondent No.1 to consider the objections, if any, to be filed by the petitioners before passing any order in light of the direction issued by the Tribunal in Revision Petitions No.34/2019 and 24/2021.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

BKM

¶32

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Mrs. Irene Pinto v. the Additional Commissioner for Transport and Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Irene Pinto v. the Additional Commissioner for Transport and Secretary

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. L Geetha Vs the Thasildar

Smt. Madamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Hombegowda K N Vs Managing Director

Smt Thimmakka Vs the Excise Commissioner in Karnataka

Sridhar Rao Vs P. Vasudeva Acharya

Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Ltd., Vs M/S Aavanti Solar Energy Private Limited