Smt Kusuma Vs the Secretary

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS, QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R1 IN SUB. NO. PRA. SA. PRA. CHITRA. PUCCA PERMIT NO. 59/00-01 DATED 12.02.2025 IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO PETITIONER IS CONCERNED VIDE ANNX-M AND ETC.

¶34

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶35

3 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:12787 WP No. 5920 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

Aggrieved by the order dated 12.02.2025 (Annexure-M) passed by respondent No.1 insofar as it relates to the petitioner and the order dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner in Appeal No.104/2025 dated 22.12.2025 (Annexure-T), the petitioner is before this Court.

¶41

Respondent No.2 is a holder of stage carriage permit No.59/2000 issued on 04.12.2000, which was valid upto 03.12.2020 operating on the route Kasavanahatti to Shimoga back.

¶42

Pursuant to an application dated 07.11.2020, variation of permit conditions was granted to respondent No.2 by way of revision of timings. Thereafter, respondent No.1 proceeded to assign the timings to respondent No.2 on 27.04.2022 (Annexure-B).

¶43

4 -

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:12787 WP No. 5920 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Questioning the said assignment of timings, the petitioner and her husband filed appeals in Appeal Nos.171/2022 and 172/2022 before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the tribunal').

¶47

By order dated 03.04.2023, the tribunal allowed the appeals, set aside the order dated 27.04.2022 and remanded the matter to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration.

¶48

Subsequently, respondent No.1 reassigned the timings to respondent No.2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing writ petition in W.P.No.22105/2024, wherein this Court directed respondent No.1 to reconsider the representation of the petitioner and her husband.

¶49

However, it is contended that respondent No.1, without complying the directions of this Court and contrary to the earlier order of the tribunal, reassigned the timings and endorsed the same on the permit of respondent No.2

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:12787 WP No. 5920 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

on the very same day. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner again preferred appeal. The tribunal by the impugned order, dismissed the appeal holding that the timings assigned are not identical to the earlier timings

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 have filed a joint memo, which reads as under:

¶54

" The petition and 2^nd respondent pray for disposal of the above writ petition by setting aside the order of 1^st respondent dated 12.02.2025 marked as Annexure-M and the order of KSTAT dated 22.12.2025 in so far it relates to Appeal No.104/2025 marked as Annexure-T and direct the 1^st respondent to refix the timings to the service of 2^nd respondent afresh in accordance with law affording an opportunity to all the parties to the proceedings.

¶55

Till fresh timings are fixed by the 1^st respondent, 2^nd respondent may be permitted to operate the service with the existing timings. 1^st Respondent may be directed to refix the timings within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the order of this Hon'ble Court ."

¶56

6 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:12787 WP No. 5920 of 2026

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

The said joint memo is taken on record.

¶60

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the writ petition may be disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 12.02.2025 (Annexure-M) and the order dated 22.12.2025 (Annexure-T) passed in Appeal No.104/2025 by directing respondent No.1 to refix the timings afresh in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to all concerned parties.

¶61

Having regard to the submissions made on both sides and in view of the joint memo filed, this Court deems it appropriate that impugned orders deserves to be set aside and the matter requires reconsideration by respondent No.1. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶64

ii) The order dated 12.02.2025 (Annexure-M) passed by respondent No.1 and the

¶65

7 -

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:12787 WP No. 5920 of 2026

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

impugned order dated 22.12.2025 (Annexure-T) passed by the KSTAT insofar as it relates to Appeal No.104/2025, are hereby set aside .

¶69

iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 to refix the timing of the service of respondent No.2 afresh in accordance with law, after affording sufficient and reasonable opportunity to all the parties.

¶70

iv) Till such consideration, respondent No.2 is permitted to operate the service with existing timings.

¶71

v) It is needless to state that respondent No.1 shall pass appropriate orders within a period of six(6) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶72

Sd/-

¶73

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶74

PHM

¶75

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Smt Kusuma v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kusuma v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Srinivas Vs Sri Prasanna Kumar

Dr G v Palaksha Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Dhanalakshmi Vs State of Karnataka

The Deputy Chief Engineer (Works) Vs Papanna

Rudra Kumar Vs S. Balaswamy

Sri. Munivenkatayya Vs the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (Bescom)