Sri A V C Veerabadrappa vs The Regional Transport Authority on 22 February, 2016

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri A V C Veerabadrappa vs The Regional Transport Authority on 22 February, 2016

Bench: A.S. Bopanna

                         1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

         WRIT PETITION NO.7261/2016 (MV)

BETWEEN:

SRI.A.V.C.VEERABADRAPPA,
S/O SRI.A.V.CHICKAPPAIANNA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
FORT STREET, VIJAYAPURA,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
PIN:562 135.                              ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.B.R.SUNDARA RAJA GUPTA, ADV.)

AND:

1.     THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
       BENGALURU RURAL, B.D.A. COMPLEX,
       KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560034,
       BY ITS SECRETARY.

2.     THE POLICE COMMISSIONER,
       INFANTRTY ROAD,
       BENGALURU-560 001.           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT    R-1   TO    DISPOSE     OF   PETITIONER'S
REPRESENTATION DATED 18.01.2016 MARKED UNDER
ANNEXURE-A FOR SPECIFICATION OF INTERMEDIATE
PLACES IN THE PERMITS HELD BY PETITIONER AS EARLY
AS POSSIBLE PREFERABLY WITHIN AS PERIOD OF TWO
WEEKS.
                                 2



    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
                             ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 18.01.2016 as at Annexure- A to this petition, so as to specify the intermediate places in the permit held by the petitioner within a time frame. In that view, the petitioner is seeking appropriate direction not to collect the penalty, pending consideration of the same.

2. The petitioner claims to be a holder of Stage Carriage Permit bearing No.24/97-98 valid up to 31.05.2017 to operate on the route between Sidlaghatta and Bangalore via Bagalur, Kannur, Hennur for two round trips per day. The petitioner also claims to be the holder of another Stage Carriage Permit bearing No.14/2000-2001 to operate between Sidlaghatta and Bangalore for two round trips. The petitioner in addition holds a Stage Carriage Permit bearing No.16/1996-1997 to operate between Nallur and Savanadurga and back. Further, by the permit bearing No.24/1984-1985, the petitioner is permitted to operate between Murugamalla and Bangalore.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that on entering Bangalore and while passing through the BBMP limits, the intermediate places are not indicated in the permit which is causing hardship to the petitioner inasmuch as the traffic police within the city limits have been stopping the vehicles being operated by the petitioner and fine is being imposed. It is in that view, the petitioner has made the representation as at Annexure-A dated 18.01.2016 seeking that the intermediate places be specified, so as to avoid the harassment being faced by the petitioner.

4. The Learned Government Advocate on securing the preliminary instructions would submit that the case as made out by the petitioner would not arise for consideration. It is contended, the permit holders cannot operate within the city limits and the grievance does not survive. Though such contention is being putforth by the learned Government Advocate, the consideration of nature of the permit issued to the petitioner, the area in which they are permitted to operate and the end point to which they are permitted to travel under the permit and the route which they can traverse are aspects which are required to be taken note by the first respondent while referring to the representation submitted by the 4 petitioner. The said exercise is necessary to clarify the position and the manner in which the petitioner could operate the services. If as contended by the learned Government Advocate, the permit holder is not permitted to enter the city limits, there should be a specific mention of the same either in the permit or in the manner in which the consideration for issue of permit would be made. Therefore, all these aspects be considered and in reply to the representation submitted by the petitioner, appropriate orders be passed in that regard.

5. To enable the same, the petitioner shall now submit one more copy of the representation to the first respondent, who shall take note of all these aspects and pass orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible but, not later than three weeks from the date on which the copy is submitted to the first respondent. Until the representation is considered and disposed of by the first respondent, though the traffic police may check the vehicles for any traffic violations and proceed against the petitioner and the vehicles owned by them if they find violation and no action be taken only for the reason that the petitioner is proceeding in any particular route to the destination unless 5 such travel of the vehicle violates any traffic restrictions imposed by the traffic police.

Petition disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE ST

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court