V. Muni Reddy v. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore And Others

Jagannatha Shetty, J.:— Y.K Rudrappa, the father of respondent-3 filed an application on 29th January, 1964 for a permit on route Bangalore to Hosur. The application was notified in the Mysore Gazette, dated 2nd September, 1965 under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Petitioner as one of the objectors, who filed his representation. Before the disposal of the application, the Motor Vehicles (Karnataka Amendment) Act II of 1967 was brought into force with effect from 25th May, 1967. Under the amended provisions of Section 45 of the Act, the State Government issued a notification dated 8th June, 1967 in the official gazette directing that the application in respect of a vehicle proposed to be used in two or more regions lying in different States, the State Transport Authority is the competent authority to entertain such application. Consequently, the pending applications before the Regional Transport Authority stood transferred to the State Transport Authority, which after hearing the interested parties, granted the permit to respondent 3 on 6th February, 1971.

Against the grant, the petitioner appealed before the Karnataka, State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal.

2. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Mr. Visvanath, learned counsel for the petitioner, does not dispute that the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore, lost its jurisdiction to dispose of the application of respondent-3 when the State Government issued the notification dated 8th June, 1967. But he urged that in the absence of any provision under the amending Act providing for the transfer of the pending application to the State Transport Authority, the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore, should have heard and disposed of the application of respondent 3.

4. The contention appers to me to be not tenable. If the R.T.A Bangalore has lost its jurisdiction on 8th June, 1967, it cannot proceed with that application thereafter. On that day the S.T.A got the jurisdiction to dispose of that application. It is, therefore, not open to the petitioner to contend that the R.T.A having lost its jurisdiction on 8th June, 1967 should have still considered and disposed of the application of respondent-3.

5. The Act II of 1967, ofcourse, does not provide for the transfer of the pending applications from the R.T.A Bangalore to the S.T.A, but it is implied that consequent on the change in the forums the pending applications before the R.T.A Bangalore should stand transferred to the S.T.A In my opinion, the S.T.A was right in considering the application and disposing of it in accordance with law.

6. No other contention was urged for consideration.

7. The petition is rejected.