- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15670 WP No. 19527 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.19527 OF 2025 (MV) BETWEEN: SHIVAGANESH J.V. S/O J. VENKATACHALAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.520, 16TH MAIN, 15TH CROSS, 4TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B.R. SUNDARA RAJA GUPTA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BENGALURU RURAL, BANGALORE BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BANGALORE CENTRAL HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU-560102. 3. AGAKHAN, S/O LATE M. KAREEM KHAN MAJOR, C-7-777, BDA FLAT AUSTIN TOWN, BENGALURU-560047. 4. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION KENGAL HANUMANTAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560027 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI M.E. NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3; SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE FOR R-4) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15670 WP No. 19527 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT MARKED UNDER ANNEXURE-E PASSED ON 20.04.2022 DECISION PRONOUNCED ON 23.06.2022 AND THE ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN R.P.NO.103/2022 DATED 23.06.2025 MARKED UNDER ANNEXURE-M BY ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is directed against the common order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short) in R.P.No.103/2022, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioner and upheld the resolution dated 20.04.2022 passed by the Regional Transport Authority (‘RTA’ for short), renewing the stage carriage permit in favour of respondent No.3. Brief facts: 2. The petitioner is a holder of a stage carriage permit operating on the route connecting Bengaluru and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15670 WP No. 19527 of 2025 surrounding areas. The dispute relates to the permit granted in favour of respondent No.3-Agakhan, bearing Permit No.50/1999-2000, originally granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’ for short). The said permit was subsequently varied by a resolution dated 23.05.2003, whereby the extension of route from Hirekodigenahalli to Murgamalla was granted. The petitioner contends that the said resolution dated 23.05.2003 was not part of the original proceedings of RTA and was subsequently, inserted resolution in the resolution book. The petitioner therefore challenged the said variation before the Tribunal in earlier proceedings in Appeal No.85/2018. 3. The Tribunal in Appeal No.85/2018 dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation, but directed the authorities to conduct an inquiry regarding alleged insertion in the resolution book. Pursuant to the said direction, an enquiry was conducted by the competent authority (Annexure-F). Thereafter, the RTA passed a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15670 WP No. 19527 of 2025 resolution dated 20.04.2022 renewing the permit of respondent No.3, challenging the said renewal order, the petitioner and other persons filed R.P.Nos.102/2022, 103/2022, 104/2022 and 105/2022, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 23.06.2025 dismissed the revision petition. Aggrieved by the order in R.P.No.103/2022, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the resolution dated 23.05.2003 granting variation of route in favour of respondent No.3 was not part of the original proceedings and was subsequently inserted in the resolution book thereby vitiating the entire proceedings. It is contended that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the suspicious circumstances surrounding the resolution including the discrepancy in numbering and entries in the resolution book. It is submitted that the variation granted exceeded permissible limits under the MV Act and therefore permit itself could not have been renewed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15670 WP No. 19527 of 2025 5. It is submitted that the enquiry conducted by the authority was not proper and the Tribunal failed to examine the legality of the enquiry report. It is submitted that the RTA mechanically renewed the permit by resolution dated 20.04.2022 without properly examining the objections raised by the petitioner. It is submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the earlier litigations and the directions issued by this Court while passing the impugned order. On these grounds, it is contended that the order of the Tribunal suffers from legal infirmity, non- application of mind and therefore requires interference. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the permit in question originally stood in the name of the mother of respondent No.3 and after her demise respondent No.3 filed an application for transfer of permit under Section 82 of the MV Act within the prescribed time. Along with the application, respondent No.3 had also sought for renewal for the period from 19.11.2014 to 20.11.2019. The said applications were - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15670 WP No. 19527 of 2025 placed before the RTA in its meeting held on 14.10.2014, wherein the authority permitted transfer as well as the renewal of permit. It is further contended that though the endorsement of transfer and renewal was withheld in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in B. A. Linga Reddy and Others Vs. Karnataka State Transport Authority and Others1 (B. A. Linga Reddy), the Apex Court had permitted the private operators, who were already operating the services to continue their operations as they were operating earlier and respondent No.3 was also among such permit holders. 7. It is submitted that thereafter the State Government issued a notification dated 28.09.2017, whereby the permits of private respondents operating on scheme routes were saved. Subsequently, the State Government promulgated the comprehensive area scheme by notification dated 07.03.2019 which specifically protects the existing private stage carriage services. 1 (2015) 4 SCC 515 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15670 WP No. 19527 of 2025 8. Placing reliance on Clause (d) sub-clause (ii) of the Comprehensive Area Scheme, it is contended that the existing permits with trips and vehicles granted and issued by the transport authorities and which were in operation as on 18.12.2014 are entitled to operate notwithstanding anything contained in any of the approved schemes. According to respondent No.3, the permit held by him including the variation earlier granted was very much in operation as on 18.12.2014 and therefore the same falls within the category of saved permits and the scheme is entitled to continue to operate. It is further contended that the petitioner had earlier challenged the variation granted by the RTA by filing Appeal No.85/2018 before the Tribunal which came to be dismissed on 21.04.2018 on the ground of limitation. Though the Tribunal directed RTA to conduct an enquiry regarding the alleged insertion of resolution in the resolution book, such enquiry has been conducted and the matter has attained finality. Therefore, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15670 WP No. 19527 of 2025 it is submitted that the plaintiff cannot once again re- agitate the same issue. 9. It is submitted that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.6582/2020, the RTA considered the renewal application bearing in mind the Government notification dated 07.03.2019 and passed the order dated 20.04.2022 renewing the permit. It is submitted that the said order has been affirmed by the Tribunal in the revision petition and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal warrants any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of this case?” 11. The Tribunal, upon hearing the parties and examining the material on record, framed the point for - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15670 WP No. 19527 of 2025 consideration as to “whether the common resolution dated 20.04.2022 passed by the RTA renewing the permit of respondent No.3 called for interference in exercise of revision petition”. The Tribunal observed that the permit in favour of respondent No.3 originally granted under the provisions of MV Act and the variation of route was granted by the RTA by resolution dated 23.05.2003. The Tribunal further took note of the fact that the said variation had been challenged earlier by the petitioner in Appeal No.85/2018, which came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. However, the Tribunal had directed the authority to conduct an enquiry with regard to the alleged insertion of resolution in the resolution book. The Tribunal observed that pursuant to the direction, the competent authority had conducted an enquiry and submitted a report which was accepted by the RTA. The Tribunal noted that the said enquiry was essentially a departmental in nature and the petitioner had not successfully challenged the outcome of the enquiry. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15670 WP No. 19527 of 2025 12. The Tribunal further noted that the review petitions filed by the petitioner's wife in RP.Nos.574/2008 to 576/2008 which had also been dismissed by the Tribunal and further noted that the petitioner had approached this Court in WP.No.6582/2020, whereby this Court had directed the RTA to consider the renewal and transfer application in accordance with law keeping in view the Government notification dated 07.03.2019 without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contention. 13. After considering the said direction, the Tribunal observed that the RTA had taken in account the earlier proceedings, the enquiry report and the Government notification dated 07.03.2019, while passing the order dated 20.04.2022 granting renewal of permit. The Tribunal observed that the permit in favour of respondent No.3 falls within the category of existing permits protected under the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15670 WP No. 19527 of 2025 Comprehensive Area Scheme, as the permit was in operation as on 18.12.2014. 14. The controversy essentially revolves around the variation of route granted by the RTA by resolution dated 23.05.2003 and the subsequent renewal of permit in favour of respondent No.3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had challenged the said variation before the Tribunal in Appeal No.85/2018, which came to be dismissed. The operative portion of the order reads as under: “ORDER I.A.NO.I is rejected. Consequently appeal is rejected. Send a copy of this order to the first respondent with a direction to initiate an enquiry as to insertion of impugned resolution into resolution book dated 23/05/2003 and take action in accordance with law. Return the Lower Court Records forthwith. No order as to costs.” - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15670 WP No. 19527 of 2025 15. Though the Tribunal directed RTA to conduct an enquiry with regard to the alleged insertion of resolution in the resolution book, the records disclose that such enquiry was in fact conducted and enquiry report was placed before the competent authority. The RTA had taken note of the said enquiry report while passing the subsequent order dated to 20.04.2022 granting renewal of the permit. 16. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner approached this Court against the order of the Tribunal rejecting the Appeal No.85/2018 in WP.No.6582/2020, whereby this Court disposed of the writ petition, without expressing any opinion on the merits and directed the RTA to consider the renewal and transfer application in accordance with law bearing in mind the Government notification dated 07.03.2019. The operative portion of the order reads as under: “5. After having heard the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material on record, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it fit and proper to - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15670 WP No. 19527 of 2025 dispose of this petition, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The RTA before whom the respondent No.2’s application for renewal and transfer of the permit that originally stood in the name of the deceased mother Smt.Banijan is pending, is directed to consider the said application in accordance with law bearing in mind the State Government Notification dated 07.03.2019. (ii) The RTA is also directed to bear in mind the directions issued in the operative portion of the impugned order dated 21.04.2018 passed by the KSTAT in Appeal No.85/2018 which reads as under:- "I.A.No.1 is rejected. Consequently, appeal is rejected. Send a copy of this order to the first respondent with a direction to initiate an enquiry as to insertion of impugned resolution into resolution book dated 23/05/2003 and take action in accordance with law. Return the lower court records forthwith. No order as to costs". (iii) The RTA is also directed to consider the claim/objections of the petitioner and respondent - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15670 WP No. 19527 of 2025 No.2 before passing any order in accordance with law. (iv) It is made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits / demerits and the same are left open to be decided by the RTA. No costs.” 17. Pursuant to the said direction, the RTA considered the matter and passed the order. Further, the material on record indicates that the State Government had promulgated the Comprehensive Area Scheme vide notification dated 07.03.2019, wherein Clause (d) sub clause (ii) provides that the existing permits with trips and vehicles granted and issued by the Transport Authorities and which were in operation as on 18.12.2014, shall be entitled to operate notwithstanding anything contained in any of the approved scheme. The records disclose that the permit granted in favour of respondent No.3 including the variation earlier granted by the RTA was very much in operation as on 18.12.2014. Consequently, the permit of - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15670 WP No. 19527 of 2025 respondent No.3 falls within the category of saved permits protected under the said scheme. 18. Insofar as the challenge of variation granted in the year 2003 is concerned, the same has already been raised in the earlier proceedings before the Tribunal, this Court, and the said proceedings have attained finality. Once the earlier proceedings challenging the variation have reached finality and the enquiry directed by the Tribunal has also been completed, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate the very same issue indirectly by challenging the subsequent renewal of the permit. The Tribunal while dismissing the revision petition has taken note of all these aspects including the earlier proceedings before the Tribunal, the enquiry conducted pursuant to the Tribunal's direction and the direction of this Court in WP.No.6582/2020 and the applicability of the Comprehensive Area Scheme notification dated 07.03.2019. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15670 WP No. 19527 of 2025 19. This Court does not find any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal, warranting any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26