IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.52933/2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
CRAYSOL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD., M/S CRAYSOL TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., COCHIN UNIVERSITY ROAD KALAMANCHERY KERALA, INDIA REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED MR. NIBU PHILIP (BY SRI MANJUNATH B, ADV.) ... PETITIONER AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT 3RD FLOOR, A BLOCK TTMC BUILDING SHANTHI NAGAR BANGALORE-560027 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K P YOGANNA, HCGP.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE NOC, TO THE PETITIONER COMPANY TO FIT THEIR COMPANY DEVICE TO THE VEHICLES AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO INSIST ON TO GET FIT A SPEED CONTROL DEVICE OF RESPONDENTS CHOICE AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE COSTS OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for the respondents and file memo of appearance in four weeks.
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to issue NOC to the petitioner to fit the Speed Control Devices manufactured by them.
3. Though such mandamus is sought based on the contentions as put forth in the petition, learned Government Advocate would bring to the notice of this Court that the issue relating to the manner in which the respondents are to permit the manufacturers of Speed Governors had already arisen for consideration before this Court in W.P.No.41561/2015 and connected petitions to which the petitioner herein was also the petitioner in W.P.No.43244/2015. This Court has upheld the action of the respondents herein and the matter is stated to be pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court at this point.
4. Therefore when the issue relating to the right of the parties is being adjudicated in the said proceedings, a mandamus of the present nature as sought in this petition would not arise at this stage.
Since the petitioner can avail the remedy in the pending proceedings, keeping open those aspects of the matter, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE hrp/bms