The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authority has the jurisdiction to decide ownership disputes and transfer of permits, subject to the declaration of rights by the civil court, as conferred under Section 59(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 1 ) THESE four appeals arise out of a common under passed in W P. Nos. 31931 and 31932/1982.

( 2 ) THE facts, in brief, which lead to these appeals are as follow : (i) One K. Jayaraja Ballal was the managing Partner of the firm "m/s. Ballal motor Service" (for short 'the firm' ). He had a permit bearing No. 4/77-78 issued under Section 63 (7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act') by the karnataka State Transport Authority, bangalore (for short 'ksta ). The motor vehicle covered by the permit was bearing registration No. MEG 5142. As disputes arose among the partners, they were referred to the Arbitrators. One of the disputes referred for arbitration was the right to the aforesaid permit and the vehicle. On 31-12-1981 the said K. Jayaraja Ballal died leaving behind him his wife and major and minor children, his mother, brothers and sisters. Both the widow of the said K. Jayaraja Ballal and the Firm reported the death of the petitioner to the KSTA and requested for transfer of the permit. There is no dispute that during the life-time of Sri jayaraj Ballal he had admitted that the motor vehicle bearing registration No. MEG 5142 belonged to the Firm, in the pleadings filed before the Civil Court in which the disputes were pending. The ksta by its resolution dated 21st and 22nd June 1982 held that as there were disputes over the rights regarding the permit and such disputes were of a civil nature, it was not competent for it to decide the same and that as the records disclosed that the permit in question stood in the name of Sri Jayaraj Ballal, the same should be transferred to his wife. (ii) Against the order of the KSTA the Firm filed an appeal and a revision petition before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore ('tribunal' for short ). The Tribunal allowed the appeal and the revision petition by its judgment dt. 30-8-1982. It directed the KSTA to enter the name of the firm in the permit in place of late K. Jayaraja ballal and also enter the vehicle bearing registration No. MEG 5142 in the said permit as before subject to declaration of rights by civil court. (iii) Aggrieved by the said order, the wife of Sri Jayaraj Ballal filed two writ petitions. The learned single Judge who heard the writ petitions, quashed the order of the Tribunal and that of the ksta and directed the restoration of both the applications before the KS1a made by the petitioner and the Firm with a direction to dispose them of in conformity with the final award of the arbitrators and the decree of the Civil Court under Chapter-II of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The learned Single Judge also directed that till then the person who was operating the motor vehicle MEG 5142 as on 21-6-1982, is entitled to operate the same.

( 3 ) FOR the sake of convenience, hereafter, I shall refer to the firm as the appellant and the wife of Jayaraj Ballal as the respondent. The respondent is aggrieved by the last part of the order setting aside the order of the KSTA and directing that the person who was operating the motor vehicle bearing No MEG 5142 as on 21-6-1982 is entitled to operate the permit. The firm is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, quashing the order of the Tribunal.

( 4 ) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the Firm that the order of the learned Single Judge was based on several misconceptions of law and that without appreciating correctly the factual circumstances, bas set aside the order of the Tribunal. It was contended for the respondent that there was no basis for the conclusions reached by the learned single Judge and for setting aside the order of the KSTA and further that there was no justification for permitting the operation of the vehicle MEG 5142 by the person who was operating the permit as on 21-6-1982.

( 5 ) THE decision of the learned single Judge is based on two grounds. (a) That the respondent was entitled to grant of transfer of the permit as she succeeds in law to the