Karnataka High Court
S.H. Abbas vs Karnataka State Transport Appellate ... on 19 June, 2000
Equivalent citations: II(2001)ACC177
Author: Mohamed Anwar
Bench: Mohamed Anwar
ORDER Mohamed Anwar, J.
1. Mr. B.H. Satish, learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 and 2.
2. Heard both the learned Counsels.
3. The petitioner who is the operator of a stage carriage vehicle under a valid permit had made an application before the 2nd respondent seeking replacement of the existing vehicle bearing Registration No. KA 14/2404 with a fresh vehicle bearing Registration No. KA 15/6669, which came to be rejected by 2nd respondent vide his order dated 11.5.2000 as per Annexure-C, that order when challenged before first respondent-Appellate Tribunal came to be confirmed by its judgment dated 3.6.2000 passed in Appeal No. 411 of 2000 on its file, vide Annexure-D. Aggrieved by orders at Annexures-C and D, the petitioner has now approached this Court challenging the same in this writ petition.
4. Section 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", in short) for replacement of the vehicle reads thus:
83. Replacement of vehicles-The holder of a permit may, with the permission of the Authority by which the permission was granted, replace any vehicle covered by the permit by any other vehicle of the same nature.
Rule 79 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 relates to the procedure for replacement of a vehicle covered by a permit, to be validated by a Competent Authority i.e., respondent 2 herein.
5. Sub-section (3) of this Rule 79 contemplates that an application filed by any existing operator seeking replacement of the vehicle would be rejected only on either of the two grounds. They are; (i) if the permit holder has contravened any of the conditions of the permit, and (ii) if he has lost possession of the vehicle in question. None of these grounds admittedly exists in this case. Therefore, there was no sufficient legal justification for both the Authorities below to have declined the request of the petitioner to permit him to replace his vehicle as prayed in his application.
6. Hence, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders at Annexures-C and D passed by respondents 2 and 1, respectively are quashed. Respondent 2 is directed to proceed to dispose of the petitioner's application stated in his order at Annexure-C, afresh according to law and in the light of the observations made herein above.