IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI REVIEW PETITION NO.516/2019 Between:
ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Regent Insignia, # 414, 3rd Floor, 4th Block, 17th Main, 100 Feet Road, Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 034.
Through Its Authorized Representative.
(By Sri.Udaya Holla, Sr. Counsel for Smt. Sumalatha K., Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Through its Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Additional Transport Commissioner And Secretary, State Transport Authority, Bangalore.
1st Floor TTMC Building, A – Block, Shantinagar, Bangalore – 560 027.
…Petitioner 3. The Commissioner Road and Transport Department, State Transport Authority 1st Floor, TTMC Building, A - Block, Shanthinagar, Bangalore – 560 027.
4. Karnataka State Transport Authority, Through its Secretary, 1st Floor TTMC Building, A - Block, Shanthinagar, Bangalore – 560 027.
5. Union of India, Through Principal Secretary, The Ministry of Road Transport And Highways, Transport Bhawan, 1 Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110 001.
6. Roppen Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd., Reg. Office at 3rd Floor, Sai Prithvi Arcade, Megha Hills, Sri.Rama Colony, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana State – 500 081.
...Respondents (By Smt.K.P.Yashodha, HCGP for R1 to R4; Sri.Madanan Pillai R., Advocate for R5; Service of notice to R6 dispensed vide Order dated 14.11.2019) This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with 114 of CPC praying to (a) allow the present Review Petition and Review the Order dated 12.09.2019 (Annexure – A) passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No.14485 of 2019 and etc., This Review Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER The grievance of the review petitioner is that prayer (a) and (b) relating to issue of writ of mandamus to the competent authority have not been considered while disposing the main petition. On perusal of the pleadings read with the documents in the writ petition relating to the demand of the petitioner, they are not tallying with each other. Unless there is specific demand before the competent authority, the question of writ of mandamus to the concerned authority do not arise. Since authority had no occasion to examine the exact grievance so as to ascertain whether petitioner has enforceable right or not, Supreme Court in the case of MANI SUBRAT JAIN vs STATE OF HARYANA reported in AIR 1977 SC 276.
Para.9 of the said decision reads as under:
“para.9: The High Court rightly dismissed the petitions. It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by some one who has a legal duty to do something. (See Halsbury’s Laws of England 4TH Ed. Vol. I, PARAGRAPH 122); State of Haryana V. Subash Chander, (1974) 1 SCR 165 = (AIR 1973 SC 2216); Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed, (1976) 3 SCR 58 = (AIR 1976 SC 578) and Ferris Extraordinary Legal Remedies paragraph 198.
Accordingly, review petitioner has not made out a case so as to review the order dated 12.09.2019. The rejection of this review petition would not come in the way of making a appropriate representation. If such representation is made before the competent authority, the same be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. If any favourable order is passed in favour of petitioner and such order is likely to affect any right of the private respondents, in that event private respondents be heard in the matter.
Accordingly, review petition stands disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE UN