Raghuvendra Bhat vs The Regional Transport Authority on 18 February, 2016

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Raghuvendra Bhat vs The Regional Transport Authority on 18 February, 2016

Bench: A S Bopanna

                                1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

          WRIT PETITION No.55223/2015 (MV)

BETWEEN:

RAGHUVENDRA BHAT
S/O SUBRAMANYA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
BHARATHI MOTORS
BANNANJEI, UDUPI.
                                         ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B G RAGHURAM, ADV.)


AND:

  1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
     RAJATHADRI, MANIPAL
     UDUPI-576101.

  2. THE SECRETARY
     REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
     UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-576101
                                       ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. T S MAHANTESH, AGA.)

      THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO DIRECT
THE R2 VIZ., THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
AUTHORITY, UDUPI AND TO ASSIGN THE TIMINGS AS PER
ANN-A, DATED 25.07.2015 IN THE MEETING OF THE R2 WITHIN
15 DAYS.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMANARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                              2


                       ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the second respondent to assign the timings as directed through the resolution dated 25.07.2015 vide Sub. No.92/2013-14.

2. The petitioner has been granted the variation of condition of permit No.70(DK)/1993-94 for the route Udupi to Kollur and back as stated in the petition. While considering the same through the resolution dated 25.07.2015 the first respondent has also directed the second respondent to assign the timings. The petitioner in that regard had made a representation dated 24.08.2015. Despite the same, since the timing has not been assigned, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Having noticed these aspects of the matter, when a statutory function is to be performed by the second 3 respondent and the same has not been done, I am of the opinion that appropriate direction be issued accordingly.

4. The second respondent is directed to take note of the resolution dated 25.07.2015 in Sub.No.92/2013-14 and take steps to assign timings as directed therein as expeditiously as possible not later than four weeks from the date on which a copy of the order is furnished.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE akc/bms

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court