B F AMANULLAH KHAN Vs. R TA MANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions coming up for orders on I.A I for vacating the interim stay, is taken up for final disposal by the following order after hearing the counsel for the parties.

(2.) The facts leading to these petitions briefly stated are as follows: The petitioners are operators of stage carriages on the route Huliyurdurga to Bangalore via Magadi. 3rd. respondent was also an operator from Jakken- hally Cross to Bangalore on a permit granted by the first respondent R. T. A. Mandya, in 1981-82. The original permit granted to the 3rd respondent did not provide a halt between Hulivurdurga and Bangalore. It is necessary to state that the petitioners were operators who were given stage' carriage permits prior to the grant in favour of 3rd respondent. On account of some public representation the R.T.A. Mandya, published a Notification in the Karnataka Gazettee dated 25,2.1982 by which it was proposed to a lter the conditions of the permit issued to the 3rd responden.t on the route in question namely, Jakkenahally cross to Bangalore by providing a halt at Magadi. Further, the R.T.A. took up the matter on 10.3.82 and the condition of the permit, was altered under Section 48 (3) (xxi) providing a halt at Magadi. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed appeals before the 2nd respondent the Karnataka state Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, interalia contending that the mandatory requirement of notice of 30 days was not given to the affected operators. They also moved for interim stay of the grant. That application moving for stay of the grant of halt by altering the conditions of the permit was rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated 21.5,1982. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution .

(3.) Normally, this Court will not interfere under Art. 226 in any matter where challenge is made to the discretionary orders of the Tribunal as at interim arrangement. But, in the instant case, the main ground on which the attack is made was already the subject matter of decision of this Court in Gangadharaiah vs. Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Bangalore (1) in which the Court clearly took the view that any alteration in the conditions of a permit under Section 48 (3) (xxi) can only be after notice to the affected existing stags carriage operators on the route in question and not otherwise.