IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.39307 OF 2025 (MV)

BETWEEN:

SALEEM KHAN AGE 65 YEARS, S/O LATE KAREEM KHAN, NO.55, VELIRAMAN KOVIL STREET, VIVEKNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 047.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI NAGESHA M.E., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOLAR, BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLAR-563 101. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M

3. ZAMEER AHAMED, Location: HIGH COURT OF AGE 68 YEARS, KARNATAKA S/O LATE K.M. ABDUL RAHAMAN, SHAMSHEER REHMANIA MOTOR SERVICE, NO.1003, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD, KOLAR-563 101.

4. M/S. VENSON TRANSPORTS PVT. LTD., NO.25-197, REDDYGUNTA, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517 001, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

5. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

REG. UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1961.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2;

SRI C.V. KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4;

SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS; QUASH THE ORDER OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PASSED ON 18.12.2025 IN R.P.NO.22/2024, 23/2024, 28/2024, 29/2024, 52/2024 AND 53/2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-K.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has called in question the order dated

18.12.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short), whereby the Tribunal has set aside the renewal of stage carriage permit granted in favour of the petitioner by the Regional Transport Authority, Kolar (‘RTA’ for short). 2. The petitioner was originally granted two stage carriage permits in the year 1996 by the RTA. The said grant of permits was challenged by the KSRTC and by an order dated 19.06.1996, this Court in earlier writ proceedings set aside the grant and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Pursuant to the said remand, the applications of the petitioners came to be rejected on the ground of overlapping of notified routes. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and thereafter in a series of writ petitions before this Court, whereby the matter was either remanded or the claims of the petitioners were negative while in certain proceedings limited liberty was reserved to the petitioner.

3. The litigation has thus undergone multiple rounds before the Tribunal and this Court in earlier writ petition and orders therein have attained finality, which would be in detail addressed by this Court in the course of findings. During the interregnum scheme, notification dated 07.11.2003, 28.09.2017 and 07.03.2019 came to be issued incorporating saving clauses in respect of the existing permits and pending renewal application. The petitioner relying upon the said documents, sought renewal of the permits which came to be granted by the RTA on 13.09.2023. The said renewal was challenged before the Tribunal, whereby by the impugned order dated 18.12.2025 set aside the renewal. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that:

i. The petitioner's permits and pending renewal applications are protected under the saving clauses introduced in the scheme notification of 2017-19.

ii. The renewal applications have been pending on the relevant date. The petitioner is entitled to continuation of the permits and the renewal relates back under Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’ for short).

iii. Non-operation of the service was on account of pending litigation and judicial orders and therefore cannot be put against the petitioner.

iv. The Tribunal has failed to consider the effect of retrospective