Dr Sir M Visweshwaraiah Institute vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2018

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Dr Sir M Visweshwaraiah Institute vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2018

Bench: S.Sujatha

                              1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF APRIL, 2018

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

       WRIT PETITION No.17231 OF 2018 (T-MVT)


BETWEEN:

DR. SIR M. VISWESHWARAIAH
INSTITUTE OF NURSING,
OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD,
BEHIND RAILWAY STATION,
MANDYA-571 401, BY ITS SECRETARY,
SMT. H.K. BHARATHI.                       ...PETITIONER

       (BY SRI. B.R.S. GUPTA, ADV.)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY-
       TO GOVERNMENT,
       TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
       FIRST FLOOR,
       MULTISTOREYED BUILDINGS,
       DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
       BENGALURU-560 001.

2.     THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
       REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
       OPP. GHOUSIA COLLEGE,
       BENGALURU-MYSURU ROAD,
       RAMANAGARAM,
       PIN : 571 511.              ...RESPONDENTS

       (BY T.K. VEDAMURTHY, AGA FOR R1)


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE
SECTION-8B OF THE KARNATAKA MOTOR VEHICLES
                            2



TAXATION ACT AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WITHOUT
AUTHORITY OF LAW AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION    IS COMING ON     FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:



                       ORDER

Petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 8B of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act,1957 interalia challenging the endorsement dated 19.03.2017 marked at Annexure- F to the writ petition in so far as the demand of additional tax of Rs.1,30,536/- in respect of vehicle bearing No.KA-11/B-2345.

2. It is not in dispute that the constitutional validity of Section 8B of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act,1957 has been upheld by the division bench of this Court in the case of Chandrakanth/vs./ State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1996 KAR 365, as such the first prayer does not survive for consideration. As regards the second prayer, it is obvious that the petitioner has not 3 availed the alternative and efficacious remedy available under the Act. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that writ jurisdiction invoked by the petitioner cannot be entertained circumventing the alternative statutory remedy available under the Act. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal in accordance with law. If such an appeal is filed within a period of four weeks from today, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same on merits without objecting to the aspect of limitation.

With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE KLY/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court