Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri B.G. Venkatesh, was the holder of a stage carriage permit for the route from Bengaluru to Dharmavaram and back. He sought a change of timings only in the return journey. The Karnataka State Transport Authority (KSTA), Bengaluru, by order dated 05.01.2013, granted revision of timings only in the return journey and directed the 1st respondent (Additional Commissioner for Transport and Secretary, KSTA) to harmonise the timings after hearing the petitioner and the sector operators. The 1st respondent by order dated 21.05.2013 revised the schedule of timings in the return journey only as per the KSTA order. The 2nd respondent, Smt. K.J. Nirmala, filed an appeal against that order. During the appeal proceedings, the 2nd respondent and the petitioner filed a joint memo, pursuant to which the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (KSTAT) passed an order on 24.11.2014 remanding the matter to the Secretary, KSTA, Bengaluru. Subsequently, the Secretary passed an order on 28.03.2015 refixing the timings after hearing the rival sector operators including the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. One Sri Shivashankar, a sector operator, filed an appeal No.431/2015 challenging the said order dated 28.03.2015. The petitioner also filed a revision petition before KSTAT against the same order. The KSTAT dismissed the petitioner's revision petition on 14.01.2016 on the ground that the petitioner had not challenged the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 24.11.2014 which had remanded the matter. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the KSTAT order dated 14.01.2016 and the Secretary's order dated 28.03.2015. The High Court held that the petitioner, having consented to the remand order dated 24.11.2014 and not having challenged it, cannot now challenge the consequential order dated 28.03.2015 without challenging the remand order. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Stage Carriage Permit - Change of Timings - Revision - The petitioner, a stage carriage permit holder, sought change of timings only in the return journey. The KSTA granted revision and directed harmonisation. After remand by the Tribunal based on a joint memo, the Secretary refixed timings. The petitioner's revision against the Secretary's order was dismissed by KSTAT as the petitioner had not challenged the earlier remand order. Held that the petitioner, having consented to the remand order, cannot subsequently challenge the consequential order without challenging the remand order itself. (Paras 1-5) B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Revision - Finality of Orders - The Tribunal's order dated 24.11.2014 remanding the matter was not challenged by the petitioner. The subsequent order of the Secretary dated 28.03.2015 was a consequence of that remand. Held that the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the consequential order without challenging the original remand order, as it would amount to an indirect challenge to the earlier order. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (KSTAT) erred in dismissing the petitioner's revision petition against the order of the Secretary, KSTA, refixing timings, on the ground that the petitioner had not challenged the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 24.11.2014 which had remanded the matter.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 74
- Section 80
- Section 89
- Section 90
- Revision
- Stage Carriage Permit
- Change of Timings
- KSTAT
- Remand
- Joint Memo
- Finality of Orders
