IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.2466 OF 2019 (MV-PIL) BETWEEN:
1. SRI VENKATESH SHETTY S/O SANJEEVA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT D.NO.1-114/2 DELATHABETTU PILAR, KOTEKAR POST MANGALORE TALUK – 575 002 2. SRI. RAJESH S/O BHASKAR NAIK AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.3-774, ADYAR PADAV NEAR KORDABBU TEMPLE ADYAR VILLAGE D.K. DISTRICT – 575 009 3. SRI PARAVEEN NORONHA S/O ALBERT NORONHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.1/218, NORONHA COTTAGE PEDAMALE POST, NEERMARGA D.K. – 575 029 4. RAZAQ S/O V.K.ABBAS AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.3-155/2 VALACCHIL GUDDE HOUSE ARKULA VILLAGE, FARANGIPET MANGALORE TALUK, D.K. – 574 143 5. YUSUF MOHAMMED S/O P.K.MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.8-6A27B KATTUNGARE GUDDE HOUSE TALAPADY, D.K. DISTRICT – 575 023 6. SURESH T S/O LATE KORAGA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.1-272, K.C.ROAD COLONY TALAPADY, MANGALORE TALUK D.K. – 575 023 7. K.H.MOHAMMED S/O HASAINAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.8-6A (14) KATTUNGARE GUDDE TALAPADY, D.K. DISTRICT – 575 023 8. K.S.PRAKASH NAYAK S/O K.N.SHANTHARAM NAYAK AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT 3/307-2, SANTHOSH NAGARA MUNNUR, D.K.DISTRICT – 575 017 9. VINCENT D’SOUZA S/O AGOSTIN D’SOUZA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.2-84/B MADAKAGUDDE HOUSE AMBLAMOGARU, MADAKA D.K.DISTRICT – 575 107 10. SRI.ABDUL RAHIMAN S/O HASANABBA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.3/212/4, JAVED MANZIL MADANI NAGAR MUNNURU, D.K.DISTRICT – 575 017 11. ALWIN VIJAY ROZARIO LOBO S/O REETA LOBO AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT BHATRAKODI MAIN ROAD NEAR BHATRAKODI BUS STOP KUDUPU VILLAGE, PEDAMALE POST NEERMARGA – 575 029 12. MOHAMMED HANEEF M S/O MOIDIN KUNHI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.3-116, ALVARABETTU HOUSE BANTWAL TALUK, NARINGANA D.K. – 575 018 (BY SHRI DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALORE – 575 001 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE REP. BY RTO OFFICER OPPOSITE TO NEHRU MAIDAN MAIDAN ROAD, MANGALORE D.K. DISTRICT – 575 001 (BY SHRI B.V.KRISHNA, AGA) ... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENTS ---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 09.11.2018 VIDE ANNEXURES-A, A1 AND A2 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The petitioners are the drivers/owners of the auto rickshaws who are plying their auto rickshaws in the rural areas of Mangaluru Taluk. The challenge in the petition is to the notification dated 23rd January 2006 issued by the District Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 115 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 221-a(5) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The notification provides that all permits issued for the purpose of movement of the auto rickshaws across Mangaluru taluk prior to 1st July 1997 be included in one limit and the said permits will be considered as Zone-1. The permit holders under Zone-1 will be entitled to enter the limits of Zone-2, but not to halt in Zone-2. The notification provides that all permits issued after the notification dated 1st July 1997 be considered as Zone-2 and the permit holders of Zone-2 will not enter the limits of Zone-1. Later on, a clarification was issued by the Regional Transport Authority recording that the auto rickshaws coming from the rural areas into Mangaluru and Ullal City for bringing the patients and for dropping the passengers in the Mangaluru city will not be subjected to any fine.
3. The first submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that such a classification of dividing the auto rickshaws in two zones is illegal. Notwithstanding the clarification issued by the subsequent notification dated 1st July 1997, even those auto rickshaw drivers who enter the city limits for brining any patients or for dropping the passengers are being penalized. In substance, the submission is that though a limited permission is granted to enter into other zone, if the petitioners enter by taking benefit of that provision, they are being penalized.
4. A perusal of the notification at Annexure-C and the subsequent clarification indicate that the permits issued for the purposes for movement of across the Mangaluru Taluk prior to 1st July 1997 have been classified as Zone-1. It is provided that the permits under Zone-1 may enter the limits of Zone-2 but not to halt in Zone-2. It means that even if the permit holders of the permits covered by Zone-1 enter Zone-2, they cannot halt their auto rickshaws in Zone-2 and they will have to return after dropping the passengers and halt in Zone-1 compulsorily. The said order is clarified subsequently by permitting the auto rickshaws coming from the rural areas into the city for bringing patients and for dropping the passengers. It further clarifies that in such cases, no fine or penalty can be imposed on the auto rickshaws drivers.
5. As far as the bifurcation of the permits into two zones is concerned, we fail to understand how it is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For the sake of convenience, two zones have been created and entry restrictions are imposed from Zone-1 to Zone-2 and vice versa.
6. If the permit holders in Zone-1 enter Zone-2 for bringing the patients and for dropping the passengers, obviously no penalty can be levied and, therefore, the State Government must ensure that in such cases, no penalty is imposed.
Subject to the clarification issued above, there is no case made out to entertain the writ petition and accordingly, the same is disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB