Next > IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.10600/2019 (MV) BETWEEN:
K.B.SUBBAIAH, AGE 54 YEARS, S/O K.C.BIDDAPPA, MANAGING PARTNER, ANURADHA TRANSPORTS, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 201. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.E.NAGESH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY & RTO, MADIKERI, KODAGU – 571 201.
3. THE INSPECTOR OF MOTOR VEHICLES, OFFICE OF THE RTO, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 201. ….RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CONDITION OF NOT LESS THAN 15 YEARS VEHICLE ON THE FITNESS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE R-3 TO THE VEHICLE KA-12/6282 AS PER ANNEXURE – C AND THAT OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 14.02.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE – D, ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has assailed the condition imposed in the fitness certificate issued by the respondent – authority to vehicle bearing No. KA-12/6282 as per Annexure-C and that of the Circular issued by respondent No.1 dated 14.02.2019 as per Annexure-D.
2. The petitioner is claiming to be the holder of stage carriage permit No.6/1998-99 for the route Virajpet to Ammathi, Madikeri valid up to 04.05.2023 in respect of the vehicle bearing No.KA-12/6282. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said vehicle had valid fitness certificate up to 10.03.2019 and he had applied for renewal of the same before the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent has inspected the vehicle on 25.02.2019. Being satisfied with the condition of the vehicle, the 3rd respondent renewed the fitness certificate of vehicle No.KA-12/6282 up to 25.02.2020, however, imposed a condition that the vehicle must be in valid existence. It is submitted that when enquired about the said condition, the 3rd respondent has clarified to the petitioner that in terms of the Circular dated 14.02.2019, the age of a vehicle must be within fifteen years from the date of its registration and even in respect of permits already granted, at the time of renewal of permits, the condition has to be imposed that age of the vehicle should be within fifteen years from the date of its registration. Hence the certificate of fitness as per Annexure-C is granted with the condition as per the terms of the said Circular.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the grounds urged in the writ petition. He would contend that the impugned certificate is contrary to S.59 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'), whereby the power of fixing the age of vehicle vested with the Central Government is exercised by the State Government in issuing the Certificate and finally has resulted in imposing the condition in fitness certificate issued to the petitioner. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of SRI D.L. SURESH Vs. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MANDYA AND OTHERS (W.P. No.26988/2002 disposed of on 31.07.2002) as well as the Judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court reported in AIR 2018 CHHATTISGARH 158 (Dr. SANDEEP JAIN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS).
4. Learned Additional Advocate General assisted by learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents justifying the impugned certificate as well as the condition imposed in the fitness certificate that the age of the vehicle is fixed to be within 15 years, referred to S.72 of the Act to contend that the Regional Transport Authority is empowered to grant the stage carriage permit on an application made to it under S.70, subject to certain conditions. Clause (xxiv) of sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the Act specifically empowers the RTA to impose any conditions which may be prescribed other than condition Nos.(i) to (xxiii) envisaged therein. Placing reliance on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in KARNATAKA LORRY MALIKARA OKKUTA(R) Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, ILR 2004 KAR 4206 submitted that it is keeping the public interest in mind, the condition of age of the vehicle is fixed as to be within 15 years.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. Section 59(1) of the Act reads thus:
Next >