Karnataka High Court
Sri M G Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 2020
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2227 OF 2020 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. M.G. KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
TRANSPORT OPERATOR
PROPR : NEW VIJAYALAKSHMI TRANSPORT
MAIN ROAD, HIRIYUR - 572 143
CHITRADURGA (DIST).
2. SRI. P.J MANJU
SON OF JAYARAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
TRANSPORT OPERATOR
#98/101, R.V. COMPLEX
KALASIPALYAM
BENGALURU - 560 002.
3. SRI. H.V. KRISHNASWAMY
SON OF VENKATARMANA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
PROP : MARUTHI ENTERPRISES
HEBBUR, TUMAKURU - 572 106.
4. SRI. SYED JELANI
SON OF LATE SYED NADE ALI
C/O ABDUL WAJEED, ADVOCATE
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
PROP : S.J.R. MOTOR SERVICE
SIRA, TUMAKURU (DIST).
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. C. MOHAMMED SUBHANULLA SHARIFF, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALURU - 560 009.
2. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
TTMC BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR
KENGAL HANUMANTAIAH ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.
3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
BENGALURU CENTRAL, BDA COMPLEX
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 027.
4. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
INDIRANAGARA REGION
INDIRANAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 038.
5. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
K.R. PURAM REGION
K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.
6. THE REIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
KOLAR REGION
KOLAR - 563 101.
7. THE REIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
ELECTRONIC CITY REGION
ELECTRONIC CITY, BENGALURU - 560 100.
8. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
KGF REGION, KGF - 563 113.
3
9. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
KASTURINAGAR REGION
KASTURINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043.
10. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
JAYANAGARA REGION
JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 041.
11. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
TUMAKURU REGION
TUMAKURU - 572 101.
12. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
NELAMANGALA REGION
NELAMANGALA - 562 123.
13. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
RAJAJINAGAR REGION
RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.
14. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
YESHWANTHAPUR REGION
YESHWANTHAPUR, BENGALURU - 560 022.
15. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
CHIKKABALLAPURA REGION
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.
16. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
DEVANAHALLI REGION
DEVANAHALLI - 562 110.
17. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
CHINTAMANI REGION
CHINTRAMANI - 563 125.
18. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
YELAHANKA REGION
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 003.
4
19. THE REGIONALTRANSPORT OFFICER
RAMANAGARA REGION
RAMANAGARA - 562 159.
20. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
CHITRADURGA REGION
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
21. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
MADHUGIRI REGION
MADHUGIRI - 572 132.
22. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
MADIKERI REGION
MADIKERI - 571 201.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR., HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF PROHIBITION RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS FROM
ENFORCING THE SYSTEM OF BLACK LISTING THE VEHICLES
OF 1ST PETITIONERS MOTROR VEHICLE NO. KA. 16/A-4868,
THE 2ND PETITIONERS THE MOTOR VEHICLE NO. KA-08/3663,
THE 3RD PETITIONER IS THE REGISTERED OWNER OF MOTOR
VEHICLE NOS. KA-55/2934 AND THE 4TH PETITIONER IS THE
REGISTERED OWNER OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES NOS. KA 16/B-
3244 AND KA-51/6786 AT ANNEXURE-A, ANNEXURE-B,
ANNEXURE-C, ANNEXURE-D AND ANNEXURE-E RESPECTIVELY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
5
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the black-listing of their vehicles and as such, have filed this writ petition for the following reliefs:-
"i) issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from enforcing the system of black-listing the vehicles of the 1st petitioner bearing Nos.KA-16/A-4868, the 2nd petitioner's motor vehicle No.KA-08-3663, the 3rd petitioner is the registered owner of Motor Vehicle Nos.KA-55/2934 and the 4th petitioner is the registered owner of the motor vehicle Nos.KA-16/B-3244 and KA-51/6786 at Annexures A-to E.
ii) and grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems just and necessary in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners' essential grievance is that the black- listing of their vehicles is without an opportunity of being 6 heard. Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relies upon the orders of this Court in W.P.Nos.42270- 42271/2019 (MV) wherein, this Court in similar circumstances has disposed of the writ petitions on 11.09.2019, treating the computer generated 'Vehicle Registration Status' as 'Show Cause notices', requiring such petitioners to file explanation with further direction to the concerned Authority to consider such explanation and pass speaking order and communicate the decision to such petitioners within six weeks observing that no precipitative action shall be taken until such decision is taken.
4. The learned Government Pleader does not dispute that the concerned are unable to substantiate that Annexures- A to E are proceeded by notices.
5. In view of these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition could also be disposed of with similar direction. As such, the following:- 7
ORDER
a) The Annexures - A to E shall be treated as 'Show Cause notices' issued to the petitioners.
b) The petitioners shall furnish explanation in response to such notices within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
c) The concerned Authority shall consider such explanation and pass speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of explanation from the petitioners as referred above.
d) The concerned Authority shall not take any precipitative action until decision is taken.
The writ petition stands accordingly disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE nv CT:sr