Partly allowed

Anil Bhandari v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Apr 2014WP/18045/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order allowed the writ petition in part against the RTO, directing it to process the petitioner's renewal application within 15 days by endorsing the license, despite a computer programming defect linked to the applicant's age at initial issuance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the RTO to consider the petitioner's request and issue an endorsement for renewal of the driving license within fifteen days.

Anil Bhandari Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL

¶6

W.P.No.18045/2014 (MV-)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

ANIL BHANDARI S/O LATE K L BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO. 12, ALI ASKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560052. ... PETITIONER

¶9

(By Miss FARAH FATHIMA, ADV. FOR Sri SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY K, ADV.)

¶10

AND

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560001

¶12

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER BANGALORE (NORTH) 3^RD FLOOR, SHOPPING COMPLEX RAILWAY STATION ROAD YESWANTHAPURA BANGALORE-560022. ... RESPONDENTS

¶13

(By Sri.I.THARANATH POOJARY, AGA)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 TO RENEW THE PETITIONERS DRIVER'S LICENSE DL NO.19199/62,

¶15

¶16

ORIGINALLY ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, BELGAUM, VIDE ANN-A AND ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.

¶20

In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus against the 2^nd respondent – Regional Transport Officer (for short ‘RTO’), Bangalore (North), to renew his driving license bearing D.L.No.19199/62.

¶21

The license was first issued on 12.06.1992 by the RTO, Belgaum. The same was renewed on 27.02.2009 for a period of five years which expired on 26.02.2014. Petitioner submitted an application seeking renewal of his driving license on 01.03.2014 to the 2^nd respondent.

¶22

It is the grievance of the petitioner that though more than a month has expired since the date of submission of the application seeking renewal of license, there has been no response from the office of the 2^nd respondent. When the petitioner contacted the 2^nd respondent, he was informed that as the driving license of the petitioner was issued six days prior

¶23

¶24

to the completion of petitioner’s 18^th birthday, due to computer programming, license of the petitioner could not be renewed. It is in this background, petitioner has approached this Court.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner invites the attention of the Court to a decision rendered by this Court on 24.02.2014 in W.P.No.3723/2014 which is enclosed to the writ petition at Annexure-D to contend that in similar circumstances, noticing the fact that the petitioner therein had followed the requirement spelt out in section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act by applying for renewal within the stipulated period and that the applicant was entitled for renewal, this Court found no justification for the respondent – Authority therein to deny renewal of license.

¶26

Indeed, a perusal of the order passed by this Court reveals that in similar circumstances where license had been issued long back and had been renewed from time to time, this Court found that refusal of renewal of license on the ground that at the first instance when the license was issued petitioner/applicant had not attained the age of 18 years and therefore, the computer program did not accept such application of the applicant for preparing and issuing smart card was unjustified. The said order was set aside. A direction

¶27

¶28

was issued to the RTO to issue license by endorsing renewal of the existing license and if a smart card could not be issued for any reason due to computer programming, the RTO was given liberty to issue an endorsement to that effect.

¶29

Facts stated in the instant case are similar, although so far, the RTO has not issued any written order rejecting the request of the petitioner for renewal of the license. Even in this case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not insisting for issuance of smart card.

¶30

Therefore, following the judgment rendered in the above case, this writ petition is allowed in part. A direction is issued to the RTO to consider the request of the petitioner in accordance with law and issue an endorsement for renewal of the driving license of the petitioner within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance for the respondents within three weeks.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Anil Bhandari v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Bhandari v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. M.B. Ningappa Vs the President

Smt. Shenaza Sultana Vs the Karnataka State Transport Authority

Global Energy Private Limited Vs Power Company of Karnataka Limited

Smt.Shambha.R Vs Sri Mahendra

Smt Gowramma Vs the Managing Director

Ramanna S Talewad Vs the Govt of Karnataka