Karnataka High Court
N Girish Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 2 December, 2013
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WP 12781/2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.No.12781/2013 (MV- )
BETWEEN
N GIRISH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O SRI S NARAYANA SWAMY,
NO.89, 10TH MAIN, NEAR MARUTHI LAYOUT,
BTM 1 STAGE,
BANGALORE- 560 029. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri.PUTTIGE R RAMESH & Sri LAKSHMI HOLLA, ADVS.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
M S BUIDLING,
DR B.R.A. ROAD,
BANGALORE- 560 001
2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
BANGALORE SOUTH,
JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE- 560 011. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. M C NAGASHREE HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO FORTHWITH ISSUE A BADGE CONTEMPLATED
U/R 12 OF THE KMV RULES 1989 AND ETC.
WP 12781/2013
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING-B
GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Petitioner is a holder of driving license. It is urged by him, that with effect from 08.10.2012, he has been authorized to drive a transport vehicle. After being authorized to drive the transport vehicle, petitioner claims to have sought for issuance of badge which the driver of the transport vehicle shall possess while on duty. He is required to display the badge on his chest as contemplated under Rule 12 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, 'the Rules').
2. He further urges that an application in the prescribed form seeking issuance of badge was presented on 08.10.2012 before the 2nd respondent. But so far, there has been no response from the respondent-authority. It is also urged by the petitioner that a representation dated 20.02.2013 airing his grievance has been also addressed to the 1st respondent- Complainant regarding non-issuance of the badge as per the representation produced at Annexure-A. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent-authorities in considering the application and the representation, petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the WP 12781/2013 3 respondents to forthwith issue the badge as contemplated under Rule 12 of the Rules.
3. Mr. Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner takes me through the relevant provision of the Rules, which requires that no person shall drive or cause or allow any other person to drive a stage carriage or contract carriage, unless the person so driving or allowed to drive, holds a driver's badge. It is his submission that in terms of Rule 12 of the Rules, in addition to the driver of a contract carriage possessing a valid license, he has to possess a driver's badge. His submission is that if the petitioner drives the contract carriage or stage carriage vehicle without the badge, he may expose himself to adverse consequences. Hence, it is the duty of the authorities to consider the request and issue such a badge.
4. No objections are filed by the respondent-authorities.
5. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and on careful perusal of Rule 12 of the Rules, I find that the respondent-authorities are required to consider the application of the petitioner and the representation submitted vide WP 12781/2013 4 Annexure-A and pass order in this regard, in accordance with law, expeditiously.
6. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of. The respondent- authorities are directed to consider the application and the representation of the petitioner, take a decision in the matter and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of three months from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE KK