- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39572 WP No. 23821 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.23821 OF 2023 (MV) BETWEEN: J.R. RAVIKUMAR S/O P.M. RAJASHEKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NAYAKANAHATTI CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B.R. SUNDARA RAJA GUPTA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CHITRADURGA-575 501 BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CHITRADURGA-575501. 3. MOHAMMED ALEEM S/O LATE MOHAMMED ABID AGE 51 YEARS, PROP MERCHANTS TRANSPORTS KOBBARIPETE, HOSADURGA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-575501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI M. RAO, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI PUTTIGE RAMESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI A.S. PARASARA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN APPEAL NO.43/2020 DATED 28.01.2021 MARKED UNDER Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39572 WP No. 23821 of 2023 ANNEXURE-B AND THE ORDER OF 2ND RESPONDENT PASSED IN NO.RTA/CHITRADURGA/PERMIT NO.52/1997-98 DATED 05.03.2021 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is seeking to quash the order of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) passed in Appeal No.43/2020 dated 28.01.2021 (Annexure-B) and the order of respondent No.2 passed in No.RTA/Chitradurga/permit No.52/1997-98 dated 05.03.2021 (Annexure-C). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3. Brief Facts of the case: 3. The Regional Transport Authority, Chitradurga (‘RTA’ for short) had granted a stage carriage permit - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39572 WP No. 23821 of 2023 bearing No.52/97-98 (‘SCP’ for short), to respondent No.3 on the route Gavirangapura to Challakere and Challakere to Bagur. The SCP expired by efflux of time on 29.07.2002. The RTA invoking Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act’ for short), cancelled the said permit on 19.03.2003. Respondent No.3 preferred Appeal No.43/2020, before the Tribunal challenging the resolution dated 19.03.2003. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the cancellation order and remitted the matter to the RTA for reconsideration after collecting the compounding fee of Rs.20,000/-. 4. On 05.03.2021, the SCP was renewed for the period from 30.07.2002 to 29.07.2022. A rival operator-R. Saraswathi filed R.P.No.111/2021, challenging the timings assigned to the service of respondent No.3 by respondent No.2. The Tribunal, by order dated 05.07.2022 based on the joint memo filed by the parties proceeded to assign timings for the route from Hosadurga to Chitradurga and vice versa, and directed respondent No.2 to publish the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39572 WP No. 23821 of 2023 proposed timings on the Notice Board of its office, granting sixty days time for filing of objections. It was further directed that if no objections were received within the stipulated period, the timings assigned under the joint memo dated 05.07.2022 shall be endorsed in the permit. Since no objections were received, respondent No.2 endorsed the modified timings in the permit of respondent No.3 on 04.01.2023. Aggrieved by the said endorsement, the present petitioner-J.R.Ravikumar filed W.P.No. 21188/2023, before this Court contending that the modified timings endorsed by respondent No.2 pursuant to the Tribunal’s order adversely affected his service. W.P.No.21188/2023 was allowed, reserving liberty to the petitioner as also the contesting respondent (respondent No.3) to file a representation for modification of the timings schedule endorsement dated 04.01.2023 to the limited extent and permitted respondent No.3 to depart from Chitradurga bus stand at 10:30 a.m. instead of 10:29 a.m. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39572 WP No. 23821 of 2023 5. When this being the state of affairs, the petitioner has now filed present writ petition challenging both (i) the Tribunal’s order in Appeal No.43/2021 setting aside the cancellation of SCP vide order dated 28.01.2021 and (ii) the subsequent renewal order dated 05.03.2021, issued by the RTA. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3 primarily contends that the writ petition is not maintainable under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short), as the petitioner had already relinquished this part of the claim when he earlier challenged only the timings in W.P.No.21188/2023. It is urged that, since the earlier petition was disposed of by way of a joint memo, the petitioner cannot reopen the same subject matter in the present proceedings. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the original cancellation of the permit occurred in the year 2003 while the Appeal No.43/2020 was preferred nearly - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39572 WP No. 23821 of 2023 17 years later. The Tribunal without sufficient reason or satisfaction, allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to RTA upon collection of a compounding fee of Rs.20,000/-. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 28.01.2021 deserves to be set aside. It is further contended that the earlier W.P.No.21188/2023 was confined only to the issue of timings and does not bar the present challenge to the substantive order of cancellation and renewal. 8. This Court has carefully considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. 9. It is undisputed that the SCP expired on 29.07.2002, and RTA cancelled it on 19.03.2003 under Section 86 of the Act. Respondent No.3 challenged the cancellation in Appeal No.43/2020, the Tribunal by order dated 28.01.2021 allowed the appeal, set aside the cancellation, and remitted the matter back to the RTA for reconsideration. Subsequently, the rival operator in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39572 WP No. 23821 of 2023 R.P.No.111/2021 was compromised, and fresh timings were assigned accordingly. The petitioner challenged the order in R.P.No.111/2021 dated 05.07.2022 and modified timings in the permit of respondent No.3 on 04.01.2023 in W.P.No.21188/2023 and the matter was compromised between the petitioner and respondent No.3 before this Court and this Court in terms of the joint memo passed the following order: “[a] The petition is allowed, reserving liberty to the petitioner as also the contesting respondent to file a representation for modification of the timing schedule Endorsement dated 04.01.2023 to the limited extent and permit the third respondent to depart from Chitradurga bus stand at 10.32 a.m. instead of 10.29 a.m. [b] The first respondent shall take out necessary publication inviting objections, within one week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order along with joint memo filed with this Court, and within four weeks there from and after deciding the objections, if any, take appropriate decisions on rectifying the impugned timing schedule endorsement.” (Emphasis supplied) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39572 WP No. 23821 of 2023 10. The petitioner, having earlier challenged only the timings in W.P.No.21188/2023, and having compromised the matter before this Court, cannot now turn around to challenge the very foundation of the same permit and orders. It is well settled that under Order II Rule 2 CPC, a person who omits or relinquishes a part of his claim cannot subsequently sue in respect of that omitted portion or relinquished. In the present case, the petitioner, having consciously restricted his earlier writ petition to challenge of the timing endorsement and having allowed the same to be disposed of on a joint memo, cannot now re-agitate the validity of the very permit or the earlier orders of the Tribunal and the RTA. The principle underlying Order 11 Rule 2 CPC squarely applies to these facts, and the present writ petition, is therefore, barred by the said provision. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and this Court pass the following : - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39572 WP No. 23821 of 2023 ORDER The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2