IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.542/2019 (MV) BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE K H ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027 BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER …PETITIONER (BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADV.) AND:
1 . KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY T.T.M.C. BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR A BLOCK, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560 027 BY ITS SECRETARY 2 . ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT & SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY T.T.M.C. BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, A BLOCK, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560 027 3 . SRI A.P.GOPIKRISHNA MAJOR PROP: SRI BHARATHI MOTOR SERVICE DOOR NO.19-9-07, B-4 KENNEDY NAGAR, TIRUPATHI CHITTOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-517 501 4 . SMT.S.V.ANURADHA W/O M.V.SUDHAKARAREDDY MAJOR, CHEEKALABAILU CHITTOR DISTRICT-517 501 5 . SRI P.SATYANARAYANA MAJOR HOUSE NO.16/218 SASI RAMANNA STREET MADANANPALLI CHITTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH-517 501 6 . M/s VENSON TRANSPORT PVT. LTD., NO.25/197, REDDYGUNTA CHITTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH-517 501 REP BY ITS M.D., SRI S.GUNASHEKAR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 BEARING ORDER DATED 05.05.2018, ORDER DATED 03.11.2017, ORDER DATED 31.10.2017 AND ORDER DATED 04.01.2017, VIDE ANNEXURES- C, D, E & F RESPECTIVELY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The matters are taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties.
3. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the second respondent dated 05.05.2018, 03.11.2017, 31.10.2017 and 04.01.2017 vide Annexures-C, D, E and F respectively.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents placing reliance on the order of the Cognate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.540/2019 [D.D. 08.08.2019] would submit that the petition is not maintainable in view of the alternative and efficacious remedy available under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [‘Act’ for short].
5. Indisputably, the alternative statutory remedy available under the Act has not been availed by the petitioner.
6. Hence, writ petition stands rejected reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available under the Act within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt certified copy of the order. If such proceedings are initiated, the Tribunal shall consider the same in accordance with law on merits in an expedite manner preferably within a period of two months, without objecting to the period of limitation.
Office to return the certified copy/original order impugned to the petitioner keeping the photocopy of the same for record purposes, forthwith.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.