IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.2271 – 2303/2019 (MV) BETWEEN:
K.T.RAJASHEKAR S/O K.GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS PROPRIETOR, SRS TRAVELS, NO.321, TSP ROAD, KALASIPALYAM, BENGALURU-560 002. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI PUTHIGE R. RAMESH, ADV.] AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, Dr. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
2 . THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, M.S.BUILDING, Dr. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S. HEREMATH, AGA.] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS FROM ENFORCING THE SYSTEM OF BLACK LISTING OF BELOW MENTIONED 33 VEHICLES THE PETITIONER KA-42A-0990, KA-
42A-0993, KA-42A-0788, KA-42A-0995, KA-42A-0996, KA-42A-
1003, KA-42A-5607, KA-42A-5612, KA-42A-5615, KA-42A-5722, KA-42A-5726, KA-42A-5833, KA-42A-5835, KA-42A-5839, KA-42- 9021, KA-42A-5606, KA-42A-5609, KA-42A-1005, KA-42A-0971, KA-42A-0972, KA-42A-1001, KA-42A-1002, KA-42A-0004, KA- 42A-0835, KA-42A-5613, KA-42A-5712, KA-42A-5724, KA-42A-
5830, KA-42A-5834, KA-42A-5838, KA-42A-8968, KA-42A-0833 AND KA-42-9022 AND GRANT ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF INCLUDING COSTS.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from enforcing the system of black listing of below mentioned 33 vehicles of the petitioner.
and grant all other consequential relief including cost deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. The petitioner is the Tourist Bus Operator having business establishments in different States under the name M/s. SRS Travels. Some of the vehicles of the petitioner i.e., 33 vehicles have been blacklisted by the concerned Regional Transport Officers working under respondent No.2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel Sri. Puttige R. Ramesh appearing for the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.Nos.13196-13220/1985 and M/s. The Canara Public Conveyance Co. Ltd., vs. The Regional Transport Authority reported in AIR 1971 Mys 356 would submit that there is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to blacklist the holder of the permit from getting future permits. Learned counsel would submit that the Regional Transport Officer or the Inspector of Motor Vehicle having no jurisdiction, could not have blacklisted the petitioner’s vehicles. The Authorities working under respondent No.2 have blacklisted the vehicles of the petitioner giving a go by to the well settled legal position that if a vehicle is plied in violation of conditions of the permit, then it does not amount to plying without a permit and as such the action against such permit has to be taken not by the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) but by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA). The RTO or his staff can take action against the vehicle by suspending registration certificate but not blacklisting the holder of permit which would have an adversary effect on the business of the permit holder. Host of cases are referred to in support of his contentions.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents placing reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.Nos.42270-42271/2019 (D.D.
11.09.2019) would submit that in identical circumstances this Court having observed that no opportunity of hearing being provided before blacklisting the vehicles by which the civil rights of the concerned have been affected, directed to treat the orders of blacklisting as show-cause notices and permitted the permit holders to furnish the explanation along with the judicial pronouncement in identical matters, if any. The concerned authority has been directed to pass a speaking order and communicate the decision within a period of six weeks and till then, not to precipitate any action on the petitioners therein. The petitioner herein being similarly situated, the writ petitions deserve to be disposed of in similar terms.
5. There is much force in the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Advocate. In view of the good number of orders being passed by this Court in terms of the order dated 11.09.2019 passed in W.P.Nos.42270-42271/2019 referred to above, the present writ petitions deserve to be disposed of in similar terms in order to maintain the judicial discipline and uniformity in the orders.
6. Web-hosting of the petitioner’s permits relating to the vehicles in question (33 in numbers) for blacklisting shall be treated as notices. The petitioner is at liberty to urge all the grounds before the concerned authority – RTA/STA and putforth his explanation along with the judicial pronouncements now placed before the Court. The concerned authority – RTA/STA shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law after considering the reply/explanation and the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Courts and communicate the decision within a period of six weeks and till then, not to precipitate any action on the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR