JUDGMENT

1. In these writ petitions, one set of petitions are filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation') and the other set of petitions are filed by the holders of stage carriage permit (for short, 'the permit holders').

2. The Corporation and the permit holders have questioned the orders passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the tribunal') dtd. 19/3/2021, 7/4/2021 and 7/7/2021.

3. It is the case of the Corporation that it is the State Transport Undertaking established under Sec. 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. Chapter VI of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (analogous to Chapter IV-A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1939) deals with schemes and its effect. The State Government formulated and notified various schemes in the State of Karnataka to provide exclusive right of operation of transport service to the STU on the notified routes and/or areas within the State of Karnataka.

4. It is the contention of Sri Hareesh Bhandary T., learned counsel for the Corporation that as per law, no permit can be granted to a private operator on the notified route/s or area/s. He further contends that as many as 19 schemes are formulated in different regions/areas. Despite prohibition to grant permits to the private operators under various schemes, the Regional Transport Authority (for short 'the RTA') kept on issuing the permissions/permits to the private operators detrimental to the interest of the Corporation and the law prevailing under the scheme. He also contends that the restrictions were imposed under Sec. 104 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (for short 'the M.V.Act') in granting the permits in the notified area or the notified routes. The schemes formulated are for exclusive benefits of the Corporation.

4.1 Learned counsel contends that the Corporation preferred a revision petition under Sec. 90 of the M.V.Act before the tribunal against the decision of the RTA meetings held in granting the renewal of stage carriage permit to private stage carriage permit holders for various areas and the routes. It is further stated that original grant/renewal of permit was challenged by the Corporation in a revision petition before the tribunal and the tribunal has set-aside the grant of renewal of permit issued by the RTA. Against the said order of the tribunal, the writ petitions came to be filed in WP.Nos.26492-493/2018 and this Court remanded the said matter to the RTA to decide the same by considering the Joint Route Survey.

4.2 It is the further contention of learned counsel that there was no jurisdiction for the RTA concerned to consider the application of the respective permit holders to grant renewal of permit. However, the RTA proceeded to pass an order granting renewal of permit. Aggrieved by which, the Corporation preferred a revision petition. Though the tribunal was pleased to set-aside the grant of renewal of permit issued by the RTA, but erroneously passed an order reserving liberty to the permit holders to approach the jurisdictional RTA having territorial jurisdiction to seek for fresh permit/renewal of permit. Aggrieved by this liberty granted by the tribunal, the Corporation is before this Court.

4.3 Learned counsel further co