- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18754 WP No. 28819 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 28819 OF 2024 (MV) BETWEEN: SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O SHRIKANTAPPA, AGED 83 YEARS, R/A, A.D.COLONY, PAVAGADA (RURAL), TUMKUR-561 202. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LOKESH.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TUMKUR, B.H.ROAD, TUMKUR -572 103. 2. SRI. MOHAMMED KHASIM, S/O LATE ABDUL GAFOOR SAB, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, PROP: MAG MOTOR SERVICE, R/A SIRA ROAD, PAVAGADA, TUMKUR DISTRICT-561 202. 3. SMT. H.C.SHANTHAKUMARI, W/O H.G.CHANDRAMOULI, AGED MAJOR, ESHWARA MOTORS, C.K.PURA GATE, CHITRADURGA-577 501. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18754 WP No. 28819 of 2024 4. SRI. MOHAMMED RAFIZ S/O FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED MAJOR, BUS OPERATOR, PAVAGADA-561 202. 5. SRI. M.P.THIPPESWAMY, S/O PUNYA MURTHY, AGED MAJOR, REDDYHALLI, GOPANAHALLI POST, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 6. SRI. S.NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O LATE K.S.NARASIMHA SHASTRY, AGED MAJOR, R/A NO. 4/425, RANI GANGE EXTENSION, SAROJA MOTOR SERVICE, PAVAGADA, TUMKUR DISTRICT-561 202. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJAKUMAR.M., AGA FOR R1; SRI. A.S.PARASARA KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. A.SRIKANTH., ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5 V/O DATED:25.11.2024 SRI. B.R.SUNDARARAJA GUPTA., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & 6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Lokesh.R., counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Rajakumar.M., AGA for respondent No.1, Sri.A.S.Parasara Kumar., counsel for respondent No.2, Sri.B.R.Sundararaja - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18754 WP No. 28819 of 2024 Gupta., counsel for respondents 3 and 6 and Sri.A.Srikanth., counsel for respondents 4 and 5 have appeared in person. 2. The Common order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, KSTAT, Bengaluru is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the contentions and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. Suffice it to note that pursuant to the impugned order, the Secretary, RTA, Tumkur revised the timings. Aggrieved by the revised timings, two existing operators namely Mohammed Khasim and Shanthakumari filed Revision. In the light of the subsequent developments, the Writ Petition has become infructuous. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46