Next > IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.Nos.14419 – 14421/2019 (MV) BETWEEN :
1. SRI S.ANNADORAI S/O SOLIAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS BUS OPERATOR, DOOR NO.16/18, 1ST FLOOR, OPP: INDIAN OIL BUNK, NANJANGUD MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 313 2. SMT.SHANTHI SUBRAMANYAM W/O SRI P.SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NO.7.11, MAHADESHWARA COLLEGE ROAD, KOLLEGAL, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 313 3. SRI NAGENDRA S/O LATE NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, BUS OPERATIOR, SIMHADRI NILAYA, SHANKARAPURA 1ST CROSS, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 313 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI A.S.PARASARA KUMAR, ADV.) AND :
1. THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT, PARIVAHAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, MULTI STORIED BUILDING, Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER GUNDLUPET AND CHAMARAJANAGAR, MAIN ROAD, NEAR GALIPURAM, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 313 4. THE INSPECTOR OF MOTOR VEHICLES OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, GUNDLUPET AND CHAMARAJANAGAR MAIN ROAD, NEAR GALIPURAM, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571313. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADV. FOR R-2.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH TEH CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2 DATED 14.02.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-X.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner has filed these petitions praying to quash the Circular issued by the 2nd respondent dated 14.2.2019 vide Annexure-X and the order/endorsement passed by the 4th respondent dated 13.3.2019 and 20.03.2019 refusing to renew the fitness certificate of vehicles bearing Nos. KA-01/AB/1617, KA 10B/9696 and KA 09/06399 as per Annexures-T, U and W.
2. The 1st petitioner is claiming to be the holder of stage carriage permit No.25/98-99 valid up to 27.08.2023 in respect of vehicle bearing No.KA-01/AB 1617; 2nd petitioner is claiming to be the holder of state carriage permit No.27/99-2000 in respect of vehicle bearing No.KA 10/B 9696 valid up to 19.7.2019; 3rd petitioner is claiming to be the holder of state carriage permit No.2/96-97 in respect of vehicle bearing No.KA- 09/C 6399 valid up to 1.5.2021. It is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners had applied for renewal of fitness certificate by filing an application on 13.3.2019 and 20.3.2019 before the 4th respondent and the same came to be rejected and the 4th respondent has clarified to the petitioners that in terms of the Circular dated 14.02.2019, the age of a vehicle must be within fifteen years from the date of its registration.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterated the grounds urged in the writ petitions. He would contend that the impugned certificate is contrary to S.59 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'), whereby the power of fixing the age of vehicle vested with the Central Government is exercised by the State Government and finally has resulted in the rejection of the renewal application for fitness certificate. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of SRI D.L. SURESH Vs. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MANDYA AND OTHERS (W.P.
No.26988/2002 disposed of on 31.07.2002) as well as the Judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court reported in AIR 2018 CHHATTISGARH 158 (Dr. SANDEEP JAIN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS).
4. Learned Additional Advocate General assisted by learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents justifying the impugned order as well as the condition to be satisfied in as much as the age of the vehicle to be within 15 years for renewal of fitness certificate referred to S.72 of the Act to contend that the Regional Transport Authority is empowered to grant the stage carriage permit on an application made to it under S.70, subject to certain conditions. Clause (xxiv) of sub- section (2) of Section 72 of the Act specifically empowers the RTA to impose any conditions which may be prescribed other than condition Nos.(i) to (xxiii) envisaged therein. Placing reliance on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in KARNATAKA LORRY MALIKARA OKKUTA(R) Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, ILR 2004 KAR 4206 submitted that it is keeping the public interest in mind, the condition of age of the vehicle fixed as to be within 15 years.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. Section 59(1) of the Act reads thus:
Next >