1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 10 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.37907 OF 2010(MV) BETWEEN: MR.MEHABOOB SHERIFF S/O LATE MR.P.LALA SHERIFF, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, SHERIFF MOTOR SERVICE, RAJAJI ROAD, SRINIVASAPURA, KOLAR DISTRICT.... PETITIONER (BY SRI B.R.SUNDARARAJA GUPTA, ADVOCATE) AND : 1. THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MULTISTOREYED BUILDINGS, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001, BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SRI K.ANANTHARAJU PROPRIETOR, MADHUSUDHAN MOTORS, MAJOR BY AGE, GALPET, KOLAR.
2 3. THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU 560 027, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.G.BHANUPRAKASH, HCGP FOR R1 SRI B.PALAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN APPEAL NO.1159/03 DATED 30.10.2010 MARKED UNDER ANNEXURE-D, BY ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R The petitioner challenges the order of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal passed in Appeal No.1159 of 2003 dated 30-10-2010 vide Annexure-D. 2. In relation to the very same subject matter, subsequent to the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court, the
3 State Government have passed a detailed order dated 05.08.2015, wherein it is held at para 203 as follows: 203. After considering the above arguments and discussions, the hearing authority concluded and recommended that: i) The necessity for the modification of the approved scheme contained in the draft notification is not established. As discussed above while there is general agreement that the approved scheme has to be modified in view of lapse of time, the modification should have specific particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered, the area or the routes proposed to be covered, the overlapping portions proposed to be exempted and other relevant particulars respecting thereto as required under section 99(1) of the M.V. Act 1988
4 ii) All the permits issued on the notified routes or overlapping them after the date of the original draft/final notification of the original scheme are illegal. iii) Firstly there would be discrimination as against applicants who applied for permits but were rejected while others on the same footing were granted if such grantees were saved. The existence of such cases have been referred to during the arguments. Secondly fixing any cutoff date is discriminatory against some operators who may have got their permits after the cut-off date. Saving operators who have got permits before the cut-off date would discriminate against operators who got permits after the cut-off dates. Therefore al the three draft notifications are discriminatory because they specify certain cut-off dates.
5 iv) In view of the above, further proceedings on the three draft notifications referred to in para 9 above may be dropped. After examination of the proceedings of the Hearing Authority the Government issues the following orders: Government Order No.: SARE 140 SAEPA 2011, Bengaluru Dated 05.08.2015 In the light of the facts and circumstances explained in the preamble, further proceedings on the draft Notifications viz, No.HTD 122 TMA 97 (P), dated 25.10.2002, No.HTD/75/TMA/2001, dated: 27.05.2003, and No.TRD 280 TME 2004, dated: 09.03.2007 are hereby dropped. By order in the name of Governor Of Karnataka Sd/- K.Beeresh
6 Under Secretary to Government Transport Department 3. It is therefore undisputed that in terms of the aforesaid Government Order, the petitioner would be bound by the same. The respondents have no objections. Consequently, the petition is disposed off with an observation that the petitioner too is governed by the aforesaid order dated 05.08.2015. Hence, nothing further survives for consideration. The writ petition is accordingly disposed off as being infructuous. SD/- JUDGE Rsk/-