IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.16910-16916/2017 (MV) Between:
The President, Transport Co-operative Society Limited, Koppa, Chikkamagaluru District, Pin : 577 126. ... Petitioner (By Sri.B.R.S.Gupta, Advocate) And 1. The Regional Transport Authority, Near D.C.Office, Jayanagar, Shivamogga – 577 201, By its Secretary.
2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Near D.C.Office, Jayanagar, Shivamogga – 577 201. ... Respondents (By Sri.Vijaya Kumar A.Patil, AGA) These writ petitions are filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the condition No.1 imposed by respondent No.1 in respect of subjects No.172/2006-2007 dated 19.06.2013 subject No.232/2013-2014, subject No.233/2013-2014, Subject No.234/2013-2014 Subject No.235/2013-2014, Subject No.260/2013-2014 and subject No.262/2013-2014 all dated 20.02.2014 at Annexure – ‘A’ to ‘G’ respectively making production of vehicle as a condition precedent for fixation of timings and passing a conditional order of automatic cancellation of the permits for non-compliance.
These writ petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to accept notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner had applied for grant of six stage carriage permits. The respondent No.1 granted the stage carriage permits in the proceedings dated 19.06.2013 and 20.02.2014 for different routes by imposing certain conditions. The petitioner is aggrieved by the condition No.1 imposed by the respondent No.1 while granting the permits and directing the Secretary to assign the timings.
3. Learned counsel Sri.B.R.S.Gupta, appearing for the petitioner would contend that after the advent of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [‘Act’, for short] while granting the permit in respect of a stage carriage, the Secretary shall be directed to fix the timings at the first instance and thereafter must seek for production of documents and the same is specified in the Rule 65 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The respondent No.1 imposing condition No.1, making production of documents as a condition precedent for fixation of timings contrary to Rule 65 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is unjustifiable and the same requires to be quashed.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate supporting the impugned condition, would contend that these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are not maintainable, since the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative and efficacious remedy available under the Act. In view of the same, the petitions are liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it emerges that the petitioner has rushed to this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, without availing the alternative and efficacious remedy available under the Act. Hence on that ground alone, the writ petitions deserves to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek redressal of the grievances before the appropriate Forum within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Office is directed to return the original documents filed in these writ petitions to the petitioner forthwith.
Sd/- JUDGE NC