IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos. 25897-25898 OF 2017 ( MV ) Between:
Sri Hafeez Khan S/o Late Kareem Khan, Aged about 61 years, Prop: K.K. Travels, #1135, Tata Lane, Richmond Road, Ashoknagara, Bengaluru – 560 050. … Petitioner (By Sri.Shailendra B.R., Advocate) And:
The Regional Transport Authority Bengaluru Rural, BDA Complex, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 034.
By its Secretary. ... Respondent (By Sri. Dildar Shiralli, HCGP,) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent to comply the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No.23832/2013 dated 07.01.2014 vide Annexure-C and to consider the same in the ensuing meeting or within 30 days from the date of the order.
These writ petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing – B Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to comply with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.23832/2013 dated 07.01.2014 and to consider the same in the ensuing meeting of the respondent – Regional Transport Authority (RTA).
3. The petitioner is claiming to be the holder of state carriage permit No.51/1997-98 (Old No.17/79-80) for the route Dyapasandra to Bengaluru and back as per via places mentioned in the permit.
4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent-Authority has failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.23832/2013 wherein the respondent was directed to consider the request of the petitioner for renewal of the permit, directing the petitioner to produce originals of the permit documents available with him.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent has filed a memo along with the copy of the order said to have been passed pursuant to the order of this Court dated 07.01.2014 in W.P.No.23832/2013.
6. Adverting to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in some other matter have been wrongly considered as the submission in the present case in view of huge number of subjects listed for adjudication before the respondent-Authority on a single day. It is further submitted that all the original documents relating to the permit in question has been submitted before the Authority and the same has not been considered by the respondent-Authority. Moreover, the order of the respondent-Authority dated 30.10.2014 said to have been passed in compliance of the order of this Court in W.P.No.23832/2013 is not communicated to the petitioner.
7. Considering the totality of the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the respondent-Authority said to have been passed on 30.10.2014 in compliance of the order of this Court, appears to be misconceived. In order to balance the equities, one more opportunity is provided to the petitioner to appear before the respondent -Authority and establish the compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.23832/2013 in as much as furnishing the original documents. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent-Authority on 27.05.2019 without expecting any notice and establish the compliance of the order of this Court in W.P.No.23832/2013. If the original documents relating to the permit in question are made available before the respondent Authority, the respondent-Authority shall consider the same in accordance with law and take a decision in terms of the order of this Court as referred to supra.
These writ petitions stands disposed of in terms of the above observations and directions.
Sd/- JUDGE PYR