IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.18016/2017 (MV) BETWEEN :
SRI.S.K.SATYANARAYANA REDDY S/O KRISHNA REDDY AGED 40 YEARS R/A MADEHALLI ROAD BEHIND BAMBOO BAZZAR CHOWDESWARI NAGAR CHITRADURGA – 577501. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.LOKESH.R, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CHITRADURGA REGION, RTO OFFICE TURUVANUR ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501 BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CHITRADURGA REGION, RTO OFFICE TURUVANUR ROAD CHITRADURGA – 577501. …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 DIRECT TO THE RESPONDENT No.2 AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT THE VEHICLE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER ON 02.03.2017 MARKED ANNEXURE-B2 SINCE THE PETITIONER HAS ALREADY PAID THE PENALTY AS DIRECTED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.58114/2016 DATED 11.11.2016 MARKED ANNEXURE-A WITHIN 30 DAYS AND TO COMPLETE THE DIRECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
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 the holder of permit granted by the respondent No.1/Authority on the route Kondlahalli to Chitradurga, valid up to 28.07.2015. It is contended that the vehicle covered under the permit was giving mechanical problems. Under such circumstances, the permit holder sought for replacement of the vehicle by filing an application and the vehicle was released with a condition to furnish the vehicle documents within stipulated time. The respondent No.1/Authority proceeded to cancel the permit for non-replacement of the vehicle, after release of the vehicle within the time stipulated. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the permit, the petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No.58114/2016. Considering the plea of the petitioner, this Court granted a month’s further time from the date of the order i.e., 11.11.2016, as a last chance for replacement of the vehicle, subject to the petitioner paying penalty of Rs.10,000/-.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.58114/2016, the petitioner paid penalty of Rs.10,000/-. However, due to unavoidable circumstances, the vehicle documents were not produced. Subsequently, the documents of a different vehicle was produced on 02.03.2017, which came to be rejected and accordingly seeks for extension of time granted by this Court on 11.11.2016.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity granted by this Court as a last chance to produce the vehicle documents and to obtain endorsement of replacement. The petitioner not being serious and vigilant in complying with the orders passed by this Court, cannot seek further time to produce the vehicle documents. No grounds made out by the petitioner to extend the time for production of the vehicle documents.
Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/- JUDGE NC