IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.476 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN SRI. T.PALANISWAMY, SON OF THIRUMALAI GOUNDAR, AGE: 62 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, MAHADEVA MOTORS, R/O KRISHNA ENGINEERING COMPOUND, P.B.ROAD, DAVANAGERE – 577 006. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. N.SHANTA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANANDA SHETTY A, ADVOCATE) AND REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, BY ITS SECRETARY, CHITRADURGA – 577 501. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT.SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, AGA) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.57814 OF 2013 DATED 07.01.2014.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH. J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the order dated 07.01.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.57814 of 2013 in dismissing the writ petition, the present appeal is filed.
2. The petitioner claims to be the holder of a stage carriage permit. The vehicle which was operated by him was quite old. Therefore, he filed an application seeking replacement of the vehicle. Permission was granted. However, he did not replace the vehicle on time. The same resulted in initiation of proceedings under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Respondent passed the impugned resolution, holding that the petitioner having shown lack of interest in operating the service on the route by replacing the vehicle and therefore, his conduct is detrimental to the traveling public. However, a lenient view was taken by the Respondent that instead of canceling the permit, 90 days time was granted to the petitioner to pay the penalty of Rs.25/- per day from the date of non-operation till the date of commencement of the business. Even then, the petitioner did not comply with the direction. Thereafter, he filed an appeal before the Tribunal. There was a delay of three years four months. The Tribunal dismissed the application. Hence, the instant writ petition was filed. On the ground of delay, the learned Single Judge rejected the petition. Hence, this appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the delay is due to the ill health of the appellant and therefore, a lenient view may be taken.
4. The same is disputed by the learned Government Advocate.
5. On hearing learned counsels, we find no merit in this appeal. Substantial leniency was shown to the appellant, even though he was not entitled to the permit, he was granted 90 days time for replacement of the vehicle on payment of a paltry payment of Rs.25/- per day in a larger interest of the traveling public. Inspite of the same, he has not replaced the vehicle and kept quite for some time. Thereafter, he filed an application before the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, there was an inordinate delay of three years four months and the reason for the said delay has not been properly explained. Ill health pleaded for 3 years 4 months cannot be accepted. It is a lame excuse. Hence, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in passing the impugned order. We find no good grounds to interfere in the well- considered order passed by the learned Single Judge.
6. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Srl.