THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT MARKED UNDER ANNEXURE-E PASSED ON 20.04.2022 DECISION PRONOUNCED ON 23.06.2022 AND THE ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN R.P.NO.103/2022 DATED 23.06.2025 MARKED UNDER ANNEXURE-M BY ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is directed against the common order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short) in R.P.No.103/2022, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioner and upheld the resolution dated 20.04.2022 passed by the Regional Transport Authority (‘RTA’ for short), renewing the stage carriage permit in favour of respondent No.3.

Brief facts:

2. The petitioner is a holder of a stage carriage permit operating on the route connecting Bengaluru and surrounding areas. The dispute relates to the permit granted in favour of respondent No.3-Agakhan, bearing Permit No.50/1999-2000, originally granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’ for short). The said permit was subsequently varied by a resolution dated 23.05.2003, whereby the extension of route from Hirekodigenahalli to Murgamalla was granted. The petitioner contends that the said resolution dated 23.05.2003 was not part of the original proceedings of RTA and was subsequently, inserted resolution in the resolution book. The petitioner therefore challenged the said variation before the Tribunal in earlier proceedings in Appeal No.85/2018.

3. The Tribunal in Appeal No.85/2018 dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation, but directed the authorities to conduct an inquiry regarding alleged insertion in the resolution book. Pursuant to the said direction, an enquiry was conducted by the competent authority (Annexure-F). Thereafter, the RTA passed a resolution dated 20.04.2022 renewing the permit of respondent No.3, challenging the said renewal order, the petitioner and other persons filed R.P.Nos.102/2022, 103/2022, 104/2022 and 105/2022, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 23.06.2025 dismissed the revision petition. Aggrieved by the order in R.P.No.103/2022, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the resolution dated 23.05.2003 granting variation of route in favour of respondent No.3 was not part of the original proceedings and was subsequently inserted in the resolution book thereby vitiating the entire proceedings. It is contended that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the suspicious circumstances surrounding the resolution including the discrepancy in numbering and entries in the resolution book. It is submitted that the variation granted exceeded permissible limits under the MV Act and therefore permit itself could not have been renewed.

5. It is submitted that the enquiry conducted by the authority was not proper and the Tribunal failed to examine the legality of the enquiry report. It is submitted that the RTA mechanically renewed the permit by resolution dated 20.04.2022 without properly examining the objections raised by the petitioner. It is submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the earlier litigations and the directions issued by this Court while passing the impugned order. On these grounds, it is contended that the order of the Tribunal suffers from legal infirmity, non-application of mind and therefore requires interference.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the permit in question originally stood in the name of the mother of respondent No.3 and after her demise respondent No.3 filed an application for transfer of permit under Section 82 of the MV Act within the prescrib