-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 405 OF 2011 Smt. Janki G. Kerkar, Major of age, r/o H. No.3/8, Muddawado, Saligao, Bardez - Goa. Through her Constituted Attorney Shri Kusta Gurudas Kerkar, 35 years of age, Son of Gurudas Kerkar, r/o H. No.3/8, Muddawado, Saligao, Bardez - Goa. .... Petitioner V e r s u s 1. The Regional Transport Authority, Government of Goa, Having its office at Mapusa Goa. 2. Asst. Director of Transport (North) And Member Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Having its office at Kadamba Bus Stand, Mapusa Goa. 3. Mr. Anthony Martins, Major of age, R/o Salis Vaddo, Parra, Bardez - Goa. 4. Mr. Ramdas E. Vengunlekar, Major of age, R/o Verem, Reis Magos, Bardez - Goa. 5. Mr. Dora Carrasco, Major of age, R/o Moir Waddo, Pilerne, Reis Magos, Bardez - Goa. 6. Mrs. Suzanne Carassco, Major of age, R/o Moir Waddo, Pilerne, Reis Magos, Bardez - Goa. -2- 7. Mr. Rupesh P. Matonkar, Major of age, R/o H. No.290, Opp. Alwa Mar, Parra, Bardez - Goa. 8. Mr. Sandip Govekar, Major of age, R/o H. No.472, Tito Waddo, Nerul, Bardez - Goa. 9. Mr. Francisco X. Rodrigues, Major of age, R/o Mudda vaddo, Saligao, Bardez - Goa. … Respondents Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Amey Kakodkar, Addl. Government Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar,, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 9. Coram :- F. M. REIS, J Date : 20 th October, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Shri Rivonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 3 to 9 and Shri A. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents waive service. 3. The above Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, -3- North Goa, Panaji, in S.T.A.T. Revision no. 2/11, whereby the revision preferred by the Respondent nos. 3 to 9 came to be allowed and the impugned Order granting permit to the Petitioner to ply her bus along the Mapusa-Betim via Saligao Pilerne route and vice versa was quashed and set aside. 4. Shri Bhobe, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner pointed out that the main grievance of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the only ground on which the impugned Order has been passed is that a person who was a member of the Committee was related to the Petitioner and, as such, it vitiated the proceedings. Learned Counsel further pointed out that though it is his contention that the member Shri G. S. Narvekar had recused himself from the meeting where the permission was granted to the Petitioner, nevertheless, considering the ground on which the impugned Order was set aside, the learned Judge ought to have remanded the matter back to the Road Transport Authority, North Goa, for fresh decision on the application in the case of ADT(N)/RTA/GE-01-Z-9915. The learned Counsel further points out that, as such, the impugned Order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has supported the impugned Order. He further points out that considering that the permission granted to the Petitioner was a temporary licence, it does not stop the Petitioner from filing a fresh application for such permission. The learned Counsel as such submits that no interference is called for in the impugned Order. -4- 6. Dealing with the said submissions of the the learned Counsel for the Respondents, the learned Counsel Shri Bhobe, appearing for the Petitioner, points out that in case he files a fresh application, it would start the whole process de novo which would even result in injustice to the Petitioner inasmuch as he will have stand in the que for the purpose of decision on her application. The learned Counsel as such submits that the impugned Order deserves to be quashed and ser aside. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, I find that the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner are justified inasmuch as once the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the impugned Order passed by the Authority was vitiated, as the member who was a relative of the Petitioner, took part in such deliberation, it would be appropriate for the learned Judge to remand the matter for fresh decision to a new Committee after setting aside such Order. The learned Judge has acted with material irregularity by not remanding the matter before the said Committee. In view of the above, I find that the Petition should partly succeed and the Committee be directed to decide the case no. ADT(N)/RTA/GE-01-Z-9915 afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law. 8. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER (I) The impugned Order dated 31.05.2011 stands modified and the Regional Transport Authority is directed to decide the case no. ADT(N)/RTA/GE-01-Z-9915 afresh after hearing all the -5- concerned parties in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. (II) Petition stands disposed of accordingly with no Orders as to costs. (III) Rule in the above terms. F .M. REIS, J. arp/*