IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.21984 – 21985/2019 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI B.NOORULLA KHAN S/O LATE B.P.BASHEER AHMED KHAN AGED 56 YEARS R/AT NO.340, NEAR PETROL BUNK M/s NATIONAL TRAVELS CHANDAPURA ROAD, ANEKAL BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106 ... PETITIONER [BY SRI R.LOKESH, ADV.] AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDINGS Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY TTMC I FLOOR, A BLOCK BMTC BUILDINGS, K.H. ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER ELECTRONIC CITY BENGALURU-560 100 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP.] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS FROM ENFORCING THE SYSTEM OF BLACKLISTING OF THE VEHICLES OF THE PETITIONER KA-51- B-3281 AND KA-51-B-3282 AND TO RECEIVE THE APPLICATION FOR FITNESS CERTIFICATE AS PER LAW BY ACCEPTING THE PENALTY FOR THE PENDING CHECK REPORTS IF ANY IN RESPECT OF ABOVE MENTIONED VEHICLES.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner is claiming to be the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA-51-B-3281 covered with Contract Carriage permit No.STA- 6/CC/BUS/147/2013-14 valid upto 11.06.2023 and vehicle No.KA-51-B-3282 covered with the Contract Carriage permit No.STA-6/CC/BUS/146/2013-14 valid upto 11.06.2023 to operate throughout the State of Karnataka. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 in refusing the renewal of the fitness certificates of the vehicles and notifying the said vehicles for blacklisting in the Government website.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner is ready and wiling to pay the penalty for the pending check reports, if any, but respondent No.3 - authority is not accepting the same, on the other hand proceeded to blacklist the vehicles of the petitioner contrary to the Schedule 81A of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, 1988.
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that no representation has been made by the petitioner before the authorities to pay the penalty towards pending check reports and has rushed to this Court.
4. There is no inhibition for respondent No.3 to accept the penalty for the pending check reports, if any, relating to the vehicles in question. That being so, respondent No.3 notifying the vehicles in question for blacklisting would adversely damage the interest of the petitioner. In the circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.3-authority to accept the compounding fee towards the check report pending in respect of the vehicles in question and grant fitness certificate as per law in an expedite manner. Ordered accordingly.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, these writ petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR