IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.28989/2018 (MV) Between:
Karnataka State Tourist Bus Operators Association (Regd), T-4, III floor, Swastic Mahanadi Arcade, Seshadripuram, Bangalore – 20.
Rep. by its General Secretary, Mr. S. Sadananda Chandra. ... Petitioner (By Sri. C.V.Kumar, Advocate) And:
The Commissioner for Transport & Road Safety, T.T.M.C. Building, K.H. Road, Shanthinagar, Bangalore – 560027.
By its Secretary. ... Respondent (By Sri. V. Shivareddy, HCGP) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner association dated 27.2.2018 (Annexure-C) expeditiously, within 30 days etc.
This Writ Petition is coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The short grievance of the petitioner-Karnataka State Tourist Bus Operators Association relates to non- consideration of its representation dated 27.02.2018 at Annexure-C and the reminder dated 11.06.2018 at Annexure-D by the respondent. The Commissioner for Transport and Road Safety, for availing the benefits under the Central Motor Vehicles (14th Amendment) Rules, 2016 promulgated by the Central Government providing for registration of sleeper coach of their transport vehicles.
2. Sri. C.V.Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that in terms of the Central Motor Vehicles (14th Amendment) Rules, 2016 in question, the transport vehicle operators are entitled to seek permission for registration of the sleeper coaches and such a registration is a precondition for plying the said vehicle and therefore, the respondent is duty bound to consider the representations, in accordance with law; the said legal duty having not been discharged that too in the absence of any justification whatsoever, there should be not only a direction to consider the said representations, but the non- consideration for a pretty long period of about a year or so, should be visited with penal consequences.
3. Per contra, Sri. V.Shivareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent fairly submits that there is a delay in consideration of the representations is true, but the same is not culpable; several incumbents have come and gone; the present incumbent of the office of the Commissioner is punctual and meticulous; however, the respondent shall consider the said representations within a shortest possible time, if the petitioner co-operates by furnishing necessary information or documents as may be solicited. This stand is fair.
4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent to consider petitioner’s representations dated 27.02.2018 at Annexure-C and the reminder dated 11.06.2018 at Annexure-D within an outer limit of two months, and further to inform the petitioner the result of such consideration, forthwith.
Non-consideration within the prescribed period shall be viewed very seriously.
It is open to the respondent to solicit any information or documents from the side of the petitioner as are necessary for due consideration of the said representations, subject to the rider that no delay shall be brooked, in that guise.
Sd/- JUDGE RB