IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.2330 OF 2019 (MV) BETWEEN:
ZOOMCAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT UNIT NO.701-717, 7TH FLOOR, TOWER B, DIAMOND DISTRICT, NO.150, AIRPORT ROAD, KODIHALLI, BENGALURU-560 008.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AND GENERAL COUNSEL AND SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, CORPORATE AFFAIRS, MR MANISH KUMAR. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANDAKUMAR C.K., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRSENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TRANSPORT SECRETARIAT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT AND ROAD SAFETY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, 1ST FLOOR, ‘A’ BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.
3. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, TRANSPORT SECRETARIAT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
4. UNION OF INDIA.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS.
TRANSPORT BHAWAN, NO.1, PARLIAMENT STREET.
NEW DELHI-110 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SHIVAREDDY, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. C.SHASHIKANTHA, ASG FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 31.10.2018, 10.01.2019 AND 11.01.2019 OF THE PETITIONER AND RENEW THE LICENSE GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 75 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 R/W THE SCHEME (ANNEXURE-E, F AND H) AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER In this Writ Petition, the petitioner-Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 as it then was, running the business of providing cars on rent for the use of its customers across the Country has, inter alia, called in question the vires of impugned Rule 130A of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 on the main ground of lack of promulgative competence; it has also sought for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider its representations dated 31.10.2018, 10.01.2019 and 11.01.2019 for grant of renewal of licenses under Section 75 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in terms of the Central Government Scheme at Annexure-E complaining that the said representations have remained unconsidered by the answering respondents sans any justification whatsoever.
2. The respondents 1, 2 and 3 have entered appearance through the learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri Shiva Reddy; the fourth respondent – Union of India, has entered appearance through its learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, Sri C Shashikantha. Both the counsel have opposed the writ petition.
3. Having argued the matter for some time, resisting the writ petition, the learned HCGP submits that the vires of the impugned Rule need not be gone into in this writ petition and that there would be no difficulty in considering petitioner’s representations in a time bound manner subject to the petitioner furnishing necessary information or documents as may be solicited by the answering respondents.
4. The above stand of the respondent-State and its officials being fair, is not opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner who hastens to add that till after the said consideration of the representations, the petitioner - company should not be compelled to keep its vehicles at a bay and in idle.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner banks upon the decision of the Apex Court through Justice Krishna Iyer in the case of D Nataraja Mudaliar vs. the State Transport Authority, Madras AIR 1979 SC 114, Paragraph No.9 whereof reads as under:
“9.The authority must, remember that a permit holder has an ordinary right of renewal unless it is shown that outweighing reasons of public interest lead to a contrary result. Permits are not bounty but right, restricted reasonably by the Motor Vehicles Act.”
6. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent No.3 herein to consider petitioner’s representations’ dated 31.10.2018, 10.01.2019 and 11.01.2019 at Annexures - E, F & H respectively in terms of “Rent A cab Scheme, 1987” at Annexure-B, preferably within an outer limit of three weeks and to inform the petitioner the result of such consideration forthwith.
Pending consideration of the above said representations, it is open to the petitioner – company to ply its vehicles of the stated description subject to the payment of usual levies/charges therefor and also the official supervision in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE DS/-