IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA BETWEEN:
WRIT PETITION Nos.10216 OF 2019 & 11478 OF 2019 (MV) SRI MOHAMMED ZABIBULLA SON OF MOHAMMED SALEEM AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS PROPERITORY MERCHANT MOTOR SERVICE KOBBARIPET, HOSADURGA – 577 527 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
[BY SRI LOKESH R., ADVOCATE] AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT 3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001.
... PETITIONER 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY OPPOSITE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE, DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT DAVANAGERE – 577 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, OPPOSITE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE, DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT DAVANAGERE – 577 001.
4. SRI. M.V. RAMESH SON OF SRI. M.Y. VITHOBA RAO PROPRIETOR: SREE MALASAMBA MOTORS BHOOTHANAGUDI, BHADRAVATHI SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577 201.
5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE – 560 027.
[BY SRI B.J. ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R-1;
…RESPONDENTS SRI. B.PALAKASHAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2,R-3 AND R-5] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R – 1 TO APPOINT AN OFFICER TO BE PRESIDED OVER THE TRIBUNAL SINCE AS ON TODAY THREE IS NO CONSTITUTION OF ANY OFFICER APPOINTED TO FUNCTION THE TRIBUNAL AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 89[2] OF THE M.V. ACT OF 1988 AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents No.1.
Sri B. Palakshaiah, learned counsel, accepts notice for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order of respondent No.2 in Circulation Note No.13/18-19 dated 2.7.2018 insofar as it relates to Sl.No.2 in granting temporary permit pending application of the renewal of Permit No.13/2007-08 which expired on 21.6.2012 and the order passed by respondent No.3 in Sub.No.RTA/DAV/Sub.No.13/07-08 dated 22.12.2018 in granting the temporary permit No.155/18-19 for the period 22.12.2018 to 31.3.2019 in respect of the vehicle bearing No.KA-51/B-0133.
3. The petitioner has now restricted the relief inasmuch as the direction to respondent No.3 to consider his objections filed on 5.11.2018 before the respondent No.3 with respect to the Stage Carriage Permit granted by the authority in Subject No.5/2006- 07 dated 18.10.2006 on the route Channagiri to Davanagere and back – one round trip, Bhadravathi to Ittigi and back - four round trips per day to the respondent No.4.
4. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.2 misconstrued the provisions of law: In contrary to Section 87(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act’ for short) and Rule 54(6) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 proceeded to grant temporary permit, which is clearly illegal, improper. It is the grievance of the petitioner that before considering the application for temporary permit filed by respondent No.4, it was obligatory on the part of the authority to consider the objections filed on 5.11.2018 along with relevant notifications.
5. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.4 submits that there is no illegality or irregularity committed by respondent No.2 in granting the temporary permits under Section 87(1)(d) of the Act pending consideration of the renewal application.
6. It is significant to note that this Court in Writ Petition Nos.11393-11394/2018 dated 15.3.2018 directed the respondent No.3 herein to take note of the representation submitted by the petitioner and intimate the result of the consideration of the representation of the petitioner within 30 days. Despite the said order passed by this Court, respondent No.2 has proceeded to issue temporary permits sans taking any decision on the pending application for renewal of the permit.
7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the justice would sub-served in directing respondent No.2 to consider the representations/objections of the petitioner and to dispose of the pending applications for renewal of permits filed by respondent No.4, in an expedite manner, in any event, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.
The writ petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/- JUDGE nv