Allowed

M C Prakash v. the Regional Transport Authority Chitradurga

Karnataka HC4 Apr 2024WP/5119/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal's order allowing appeals against a transport permit cancellation without hearing the rival permit holder. The High Court held that the Tribunal violated natural justice by not considering the rival operator's written submissions and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 18.11.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal in appeals Nos. 134 and 135/2022 is quashed, and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for reconsiderati

M C Prakash Vs the Regional Transport Authority… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:13900 WP No. 5119 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 5119 OF 2024 (MV)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M.C. PRAKASH, SON OF CHANNABASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, PROPRIETOR: DHANALAKSHMI MOTORS, MEDAHALLI ROAD, MARUTHI NAGAR, NEAR RAILWAY TRACK, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. C.V. KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CHITRADURGA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TURUVANUR ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 524.

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CHITRADURGA, TURUVANUR ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 524.

¶13

SRI. B. THIPPESWAMY, SON OF BALEKAI HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, BUS OPERATOR, R/O DODDASIDDARANAHALLI, CHITRADURGA - 577 524.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.S. PARASA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. S.R. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

¶15

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:13900 WP No. 5119 of 2024

¶18

ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE DATED 18.11.2023 MADE IN APPEAL NUMBER 134/2022 AND 135/2022 (ANNEXURE-M) AND ETC.,

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner asserts that he is the holder of stage carriage permit for the route from J.N. Kote to Chitradurga and back and the permit is valid up to the 07.12.2024.

¶22

The respondent No.3 was granted stage carriage permit for the common route which was valid from 27.10.2004 to 26.10.2009. On 15.03.2012, respondent No.3 filed an application for renewal of permit for five years. On 10.01.2019 respondent No.3 also filed an application seeking for cancellation of his permit and also for the release of the vehicle covered in the permit, since he lost possession over the vehicle covered under the permit. Respondent No.1 by order dated 11.12.2019 canceled the permit and also rejected the application for renewal of the permit. Taking exception to the order passed by respondent No.1, the respondent No.3 filed appeals Nos.134 & 135/2022 under Section 89(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 read with Rule 88(1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru.

¶23

In the said proceedings the petitioner filed an application for impleading claiming to be a rival operator, and any order passed in the appeals would adversely affect the substantial common portion of the route covered under the permit. The

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:13900 WP No. 5119 of 2024

¶26

application filed by the petitioner for impleading came to be allowed, and the petitioner filed written submissions opposing the appeal. The Tribunal by impugned common order allowed the appeals, and remanded the matters to the respondent No.1 authority to reconsider the application filed by the respondent No.3 afresh. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.3 having filed an application for surrender of the vehicle which was covered under the permit is not entitled for renewal of permit. He further submits that without considering the written submissions filed by the petitioner, the impugned order passed is in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶28

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is in conformity with the provisions of law and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶29

Learned AGA would reiterate the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respondent No.3.

¶30

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶31

Admittedly, the impleading application filed by the petitioner was allowed and the petitioner was permitted to file written submissions. However, the Tribunal after having permitted the petitioner to come on record was under an obligation to

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:13900 WP No. 5119 of 2024

¶34

consider the written submissions before passing the impugned order, since the petitioner claims that the renewal of permit would adversely affect his rights over the substantial common portion of the route. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is in violation of natural justice, and is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i) The petition is allowed.

¶37

ii) The impugned order dated the 18.11.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in appeal numbers 134 -135/2022 are hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Tribunal to reconsider the appeals filed by the respondent No.3 in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein.

¶38

iii) All contentions are kept open.

¶39

iv) The Tribunal to conclude the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶40

PNV

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

M C Prakash v. the Regional Transport Authority Chitradurga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M C Prakash v. the Regional Transport Authority Chitradurga

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

Mr. Benson Benny Vs Union of India

Mrs. Poonam Kochhar Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S K M Mohammed Mansoor Vs the Chief Secretary

Shri.G.v Sathish Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

United Breweries Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Raghavendra Bhat Vs the Secretary Regional Transport