KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these three connected writ appeals, the following question of law has been referred for opinion of the Full Bench:

(2.) The brief facts of these cases. Which have given raise to the question are these: The third respondent in each of these appeals is a stage carriage operator. When the duration of the period of their permit was about to expire they filed application for renewal of their respective permits for a further period of five years, the appellant the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation objected to that renewal. The concerned Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as RTA), however, resolved to renew the permits. Aggrieved by the renewal, the appellant preferred appeals to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals holding that no appeal lies under Section 64 of the Act against the order renewing the permit. The legality of the decision was questioned by the appellant in the write petitions. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Petitions upholding, the, view taken by the Appellate Tribunal. The appellant preferred these three write appeals against the order made by the Learned Single Judge. When the appeal came up for hearing before the Division Bench at the appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme court in Ram Gopal v. Anant Prasad AIR1959 SC 851 , [1959 ]Supp(2 )SCR692 in support of the contention that the appeals before the Appellate Tribunal were maintainable under Section 64 (1) (f) of the Act. The respondents relied on a Division Bench decision of this court consisting of the Chief Justice and Justice E.S.Venkataramaiah (as he then was) in w, as 139 and 140 of -1979 decided on 22-1-1979in support of the contrary view. The Division Bench, which heard the above appeals, felt that the view taken in Writ Appeals Nos. 139 and 140 of 1979 appeared to be contrary to the observations of the Supreme Court in Ram Gopal's case and therefore, made the reference to a Full Bench for its opinion.

(3.) Before we refer to the ratio of the aforesaid decision, it will be useful to set out Section 64 of the Act. The section so far as it is relevant provides: