Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 868 (KAR)

Irfan v. Regional Transport Authority

2014-10-07

B.S.PATIL

body2014
Judgment : 1. In these writ petitions, petitioners are seeking a direction to quash the notice dated 04.06.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent - Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore, vide Annexure-M, thereby notifying the petitioners of the proposed joint route survey for grant of fresh stage carriage permit for the route Bangarpet Railway Gate to Bangalore District Border. A direction is also sought against the 1st respondent - Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore Central, to consider the representation dated 11.07.2013 seeking grant of fresh carriage permit by excluding the portion lying in Kolar district and by granting permit only up to Bangalore District Border from Devanahalli. 2. Petitioners had filed first application on 18.08.2012 as per Annexure-A seeking stage carriage permit for the route from Devanahalli to Bangarpet Railway Gate. They submitted yet another application on 11.07.2013 as per Annexure-J restricting their request from Devanahalli to Bangalore District Border. When the applications filed by the petitioners were not considered, petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.14709-713/2014. 3. This Court disposed of the writ petitions on 07.04.2014 issuing a direction to the 1st respondent - RTA to take up the matter and consider the application filed by the petitioner on 18.08.2012 in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the body of the order expeditiously, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. In paragraph 4 of the said order, reference has been made to the second application submitted on 11.07.2013. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that a joint route survey was indeed conducted on 28.09.2012 as is evident from Annexure-F1, for the entire route from Devanahalli to Bangarpet Railway Gate and therefore, there was no difficulty for the respondents to consider the application submitted on 11.07.2013 seeking modification of the route restricting it from Devanahalli to Bangalore District Border. However, without taking note of the time bound direction given by this Court, mechanically joint route survey notice was issued again on 04.06.2014 which was absolutely unnecessary. It is in this background, petitioners have approached this Court challenging the joint route survey notice and seeking a direction to consider the application dated 11.07.2013. 5. However, without taking note of the time bound direction given by this Court, mechanically joint route survey notice was issued again on 04.06.2014 which was absolutely unnecessary. It is in this background, petitioners have approached this Court challenging the joint route survey notice and seeking a direction to consider the application dated 11.07.2013. 5. On 23.09.2014, this Court having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate passed an order in the following terms: "It is prima facie clear that notice issued for conducting joint route survey on 04.06.2014 vide Annexure-M is intended only to delay/defeat the implementation of the direction issued by this Court on 07.04.2014 in W.P.Nos.14709-713/2014, particularly in the light of the joint route survey already conducted on 28.09.2012 as is evident from Annexure-F. Hence, the 2nd respondent - Secretary, RTA, Bangalore Central is directed to submit his explanation in this regard. He is directed to be present before this Court on 06.10.2014 along with the explanation". 6. Pursuant to the said order, the 2nd respondent is present before the Court. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate on instructions from the 2nd respondent submits that joint route survey notice was issued in view of the ambiguity in the application submitted by the petitioners on 11.07.2013 while modifying the request for grant of stage carriage permit. In the light of this submission, I have carefully perused the application submitted by the petitioner on 11.07.2013. 8. It is clear from the request made by the petitioners that they have restricted their claim for grant of stage carriage permit from Devanahalli to Bangalore District Border by modifying the earlier claim which was made for Devanahalli to Bangarpet Railway Gate. Therefore, there cannot be any confusion in understanding the claim made by the petitioners. Therefore, I do not find any justification for any further delay in the mater. However, as the 2nd respondent assures the Court that the matter will be taken up in the next meeting scheduled on 14.10.2014 and that the application will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed on or before the end of October 2014, it is unnecessary to go deep into the matter. 9. However, as the 2nd respondent assures the Court that the matter will be taken up in the next meeting scheduled on 14.10.2014 and that the application will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed on or before the end of October 2014, it is unnecessary to go deep into the matter. 9. Submission made by the 2nd respondent that the matter will be considered by the Regional Transport Authority in the meeting scheduled on 14.10.2014 and that orders will be passed considering the application submitted by the petitioners on 11.07.2013 seeking grant of stage carriage permit by the end of October 2014 is placed on record. In the light of the undertaking given by way of the above submission made by the learned Additional Government advocate, these writ petitions are disposed of.