Ahmed Khan vs R.T.A., Mandya and Others

The petitioner has challenged the interim stay granted by the Karnataka State Road Transport Appellate Tribunal in Revision Petn. Nos. 159/1982 and 543/1982. Those revision petitions came to be filed by some of the objectors who are stage carriage operators on routes between Mandya and Channapatna. The petitioner himself held a permit on the route Mandya to Channapatna via Guthalu, D.A. Kere, Annur, district Border. Jagadapura and Channapatna.

The R.T.A. Mandya on the representation received by the Chairman of the Village Panchayat of Honganur in Channapatna Taluk suo motu proposed the altering of conditions of permit of the petitioner from Channpatna to Yelethotadahalli by adding a distance of 14 kms. By resolution dt. 12-5-1982, the R.T.A. varied the conditions of the permit under S. 48(3)(xxi) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter to be referred as ''the Act''), by the extension of the route as stated above.

The case of the respondents herein, before the Tribunal has been that there was no notice to them either of the proposed alteration as required by the proviso to Cl. (xxi) of sub-sec. (3) of S. 48. It is that fact that persuaded the Tribunal to grant stay of the condition altered and extension thereby granted.

Sri Ananda Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has strenuously contended that the notice of the proposed additional condition under S. 48(3)(xxi) was put on the notice board of the 2nd respondent Tribunal and therefore there was compliance of the requirement of Rule 91 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 framed under the Act. A perusal of Rule 91 clearly indicates that the R.T.A., S.T.A. and other authorities under the Act are to meet at specified intervals or more often if necessary and that they must indicate the business which they intend to transact and issue notice to all persons who would be affected by the business transacted and also publish the agenda of the particular meeting on the notice board of the concerned authority. From that it cannot be said that mere display of the agenda would be compliance of Rule 91. Notice to persons who are likely to be affected by the action of the concerned authorities should be notice which is understood as such in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. Notice can be either by post, hand-delivery or by publication in the official Gazette. If that is not done, then it cannot be said that the affected persons have had notice. Therefore, I do not see any justification to interfere with the order of the stay granted by the Tribunal in these proceedings.

The petition is rejected with the observation that the petitioner is at liberty to move the Tribunal to remand the matter to the R.T.A. for fresh consideration if he is so advised.