IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.17415/2017 (MV) BETWEEN :
SMT.SHANTHA W/O DINESH AGED 46 YEARS HARIGE, VIDYANAGAR SHIVAMOGGA. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.M.E.NAGESH, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY HONNALI ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577217. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY HONNALI ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577217. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIJAYA KUMAR A.PATIL, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS; QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, SHIVAMOGGA, DATED 25.11.2014 IN SUBJECT No.518/2013-14 AT ANNEXURE-A AND THAT OF THE ORDER OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN APPEAL No.1244/2014 DATED 13.02.2015 AT ANNEXURE-B. ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION 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 is a holder of stage carriage permit which was valid up to 14.04.2014. An application for renewal was filed within time. The Regional Transport Authority (‘RTA’ for short) allowed the renewal application on 06.01.2014 and held that the renewal endorsement should be obtained by the permit holder within 30 days. It is contended by the petitioner that due to unavoidable circumstances, she could not get the renewal endorsement within the time stipulated by the first respondent. Hence, a request was made to the second respondent on 25.11.2014 to endorse the same. But, the second respondent rejected the same. The petitioner approached the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) but in vain. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel Sri.M.E.Nagesh, appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner could not get the renewal endorsement within 30 days as directed by the respondent No.1 while allowing the renewal application, due to unavoidable circumstances which was beyond her control and in similar matters, this Court has directed the Authorities to get the endorsement of renewal imposing penalty. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for similar relief. However, the Tribunal failed to consider the fervent plea made by the petitioner and rejected the appeal.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate supporting the impugned orders, submits that the petitioner having failed to avail the opportunity provided to get the renewal endorsement within a period of 30 days from 06.01.2014 and the appeal being dismissed by the Tribunal, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. It is true that the petitioner has not complied with the orders passed by the first respondent dated 06.01.2014. However, she made an application on 25.11.2014 to extend the time granted to get the renewal endorsement which came to be rejected. Again, the petitioner approached the Tribunal with delay. As such, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and is now seeking for quashing the orders impugned herein and to direct the respondents to endorse the renewal with penalty, in terms of the order passed in writ petition No.6771/2016 dated 07.11.2016.
7. Considering the factual matrix of the case, this Court is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to provide an opportunity as a last chance to the petitioner subject to payment of penalty. Hence, the respondents/ Authorities shall re-consider the application filed by the petitioner to get renewal endorsement, with a pragmatic approach, subject to production of the relevant documents and paying the penalty of Rs.10,000/- within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.
Sd/- JUDGE NC