IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.39404/2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN M/S. HI TOUCH #21/C, GANAPATI PLAZA 3RD FLOOR, 59TH ‘A’ CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. NARAYANASWAMY V.N. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SRINIVASAN K R, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-1 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE-27 3. THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER (COMMERCIAL) BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI P.D.SURANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.1.3.13, VIDE ANN-H ISSUED BY THE R3, HEREIN ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR “PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP”, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri Srinivasan K.R., Advocate for petitioner. Smt.Niloufer Akbar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Sri P.D.Surana, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
This petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the petitioner, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has sought for the following reliefs:
a) To issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction to quash the order bearing No.BMTC/CO/TR/COM/ ADVT/5840/2012-13 dated 01.03.2013 (Annexure-H) issued by 3rd Respondent herein.
b) To issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other writ or order or direction directing the 3rd Respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.03.2013 (Annexure- J) afresh regarding waiver of December 2012 license fee and further directing the 3rd Respondent to refund the security deposit after deducting Rs.4,92,360/- towards TDS amount for the financial year 2012-13 & to pay the balance amount of the security deposit to the petitioner.”
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the controversy in this petition is squarely covered by the decision dated 24.9.2012 rendered by a Bench of this Court in WP No.7759-7760/2010 and the instant writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the direction contained in paragraph 6 of the said order.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that if any amount is due to the petitioner, after deduction of the arrears of license fee and legally payable charges if any, same shall be paid to the petitioner.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the decision dated 24.9.2012 rendered in WP Nos.7759-7760/2010 by passing the following order:
“Respondent no.2 is directed to refund the security deposit made by the petitioner after deducting the arrears licence fee and other legally recoverable charges of the petitioner. The second respondent shall issue an endorsement as to how much amount the petitioner is entitled to in respect of security deposit after deducting the licence fee arrears etc., after deducting the licence fee, rest of the amounts shall be refunded to the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the deductions so made by the first respondent, it is open for them to approach the jurisdictional forum for getting such grievances redressed as per law. The first respondent shall issue an endorsement within three months from the date of receipt of this order. All questions are kept open to be decided.”
6. Needless to state, petitioner shall be at liberty to take such recourse to remedy as may be available to him under the law.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Sk/- CT-HR