Partly allowed

Smt. Anjalamma v. the Regional Transport Authority

Karnataka HC26 Mar 2024WP/8845/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court held that the Authority which originally granted the Stage Carriage Permit is competent to consider renewal under Rule 66 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. It directed the Respondent R1 to reconsider the application afresh.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 directed to reconsider the application for renewal of Permit No.13/0102 within four months.

Smt. Anjalamma Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:12376 WP No. 8845 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.8845 OF 2024 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. ANJALAMMA, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O LATE ANNAYYAPPA, VINAYAKA MOTOR SERVICE, KAMAGARIPETE, HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU -563 131.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI M. E. NAGESH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU RURAL, BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BENGLAURU 560 036, BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU 560 027. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶15

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU URBAN-560038. BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 AND R3; SRI T. HAREESH BHANDARY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:12376 WP No. 8845 of 2024

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DIRECTION OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 09.08.2023 IN APPEAL No.66/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-D INSOFAR IT RELATES TO SENDING THE MATTER TO RTA, BENGALURU URBAN ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The respondent No.1 granted Stage Carriage Permit in favour of the deceased husband of the petitioner for the route Rampura to Bengaluru and back, and the said permit was renewed and transferred in favour of the petitioner, upon death of the husband.

¶23

Petitioner submitted an application with the first respondent for renewal of the stage carriage permit. The first respondent rejected the application stating that on an earlier occasion, request of the petitioner for renewal was rejected, and also major portion of the route assigned to the petitioner falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Regional Transport Authority, Bengaluru Urban. The rejection was challenged before the Karnataka State

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12376 WP No. 8845 of 2024

¶25

Transport Appellate Tribunal, under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Appellate Tribunal, by the Order dated 09^th August 2023, set-aside the Order passed by the first respondent and remitted the matter to the Regional Transport Authority, Bengaluru Urban, for reconsideration of the application submitted by the petitioner, afresh.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶27

Authority which granted the permit has got the power to renew the permit as per amended Rule 66 of the Motor Vehicles Rules and also the decision of this Court in W.P.No.9802/2021 and connected matters disposed of on 22^nd August 2023 with reference to the said Rule. To this extent, the Order passed by the Tribunal requires to be modified.

¶28

Learned Additional Government Advocate and

¶29

learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the direction issued by the Tribunal is in conformity with Rule 66 of the Motor Vehicles Rules and same does not warrant interference.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:12376 WP No. 8845 of 2024

¶32

Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.9802/2021 and connected matters, with referene to Rule 66 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, set-aside the Order passed by the Tribunal setting aside the renewal granted in favour of the private operator therein on the ground that the major operation of the route assigned to the operators lies in the jurisdiction of other Regional Authorities. Therefore, in view of the specific provision contained in Sub Rule (2) of Rule 66 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, respondent No.1 is competent Authority to reconsider the application for renewal of stage carriage permit.

¶33

To this extent, the impugned Order passed by the Tribunal requires to be modified.

¶34

Accordingly, respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the application for renewal in permit No.13/0102 in accordance with law, as per the Government

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:12376 WP No. 8845 of 2024

¶36

¶37

Notification dated 28^th September 2017, by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent No.2, and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Smt. Anjalamma v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anjalamma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shivaprakash @ Chippi Vs State of Karnataka

Federation of Karnataka Chambers of Commerce and Industry Vs the Government of Karnataka

A Janardhan Shetty Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Kempahanumaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Suresha v Vs the Director of Agricultural Marketing

The Transport Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs the Secretary