IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.429/2017 (MV) BETWEEN:
Smt.Ujwala Prasad W/o T.R.Nagaprasad Aged about 44 Years Bus Operator Renuka Nilaya Opp Railway Station Shanthinagar Tumakuru – 572101. ….Petitioner (By Sri.C.M.S.Sharief, Advocate) AND:
The Secretary Regional Transport Authority Bengaluru Rural, B.D.A Complex Koramangala Bengaluru – 560034. ….Respondent (By Sri.H.T.Narendra Prasad, AGA) This petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed by the respondent dated 30.11.2016 as per Annexure-E. Direct the respondent to grant and issue of temporary permit under Section 87(1)(d) in respect of the permit No.4/00-01. Etc., This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner is assailing the order passed by the respondent dated 30.11.2016 at Annexure-E to the writ petition, besides seeking a direction to the respondent to issue/grant temporary permit under Section 87 (1) (d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act’ for short) in respect of permit No.04/00-01.
2. The petitioner is the holder of stage carriage permit, one of the petitioner in the batch of writ petition Nos.41482-41505/2015 (MV), wherein the notification dated 05.08.2015 issued by the State of Karnataka is challenged and this Court was pleased to grant an interim order permitting the petitioner to operate the service by an order dated 28th September 2015 and accordingly the petitioner is operating the service. During the pendency of the said writ petitions, the State of Karnataka passed Act No.1 of 2016 and the petitioner herein along with others filed writ petitions No.22059- 22061/2016 challenging the validity of the Act No.1 of 2016 and this Court granted an interim order dated 18.04.2016 and the same is pending before this Court. In the meantime, it transpires that the petitioner had filed an application before the Authorities for grant of temporary permit under Section 87(1) (d) of the Act on 28.06.2016 which was not considered by the Authorities. As such, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court in writ petition No.55346/2016. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent to dispose of the application within a period of four weeks in accordance with law. Subsequent to the directions issued by this Court in writ petition No.55346/2016, the Authorities have issued the endorsement dated 30.11.2016 (Annexure-E), rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of temporary permit for the reasons assigned therein.
3. The learned counsel Sri.C.M.S.Sharief appearing for the petitioner, assailing the impugned endorsement, contends that Section 87(1) (d) of the Act is not properly appreciated by the Authorities while rejecting the claim for temporary permit. Despite the directions issued by this Court in writ petition No.55346/2016, the Authorities rejected the request of the petitioner for the grant of temporary permit which requires to be considered by this Court, setting aside the said impugned endorsement, directing the respondent to grant and issue temporary permit.
4. It is discernable that this Court while disposing of the writ petition No.55346/2016 on 26.10.2016, directed the respondent to consider the application in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. In pursuance of this direction, the Authorities have considered the application filed by the petitioner for grant of temporary permit and the request is rejected at this stage for the reason that in terms of the notification dated 05.08.2015 and Act No.1/2016 which is the subject matter of writ petition Nos.41482-41505/2015 and writ petition Nos.22059-22061/2016, pending before this Court, the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of temporary permit.
5. It is true that the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioner in writ petitions No.41482- 41505/2015 and writ petitions No.22059-22061/2016 are pending consideration before this Court wherein the notification dated 05.08.2015 and the validity of the Act No.1/2016 are challenged. In such circumstances, the Authorities have issued the impugned endorsement at Annexure-E, which is amenable to revision under the provisions of the Act.
6. It is trite that any observations made on merits or demerits of this impugned endorsement would come in the way of the petitioner to take recourse to alternative remedy available under the Act. It is clear that the petitioner has a remedy of revision under Section 90 of the Act. The petition filed before this Court under the Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India without resorting to the alternative and efficacious remedy available under the Act is not maintainable. As such, leaving open all contentions to be urged by the petitioner on merits and reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the State Transport Appellate Tribunal under Section 90 of the Act, the petition stands disposed of.
7. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall continue to operate the services in pursuance to the orders passed by this Court in writ petition Nos.41482-41505/2015.
Sd/- JUDGE NC