Allowed

Sri Abdul Rawoof v. the Regional Transport Authority

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2022WP/2621/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeking temporary driving permit for vehicles pending renewal. Court held that Section 87(1)(d) does not require holding a valid permit to grant temporary permission. Quashed rejection order and directed reconsideration. Topic: transport permits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement dated 17.1.2022 quashed. Direction to respondent to reconsider application under Section 87(1)(d) within two months.

Sri Abdul Rawoof Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.2621 OF 2022 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI ABDUL RAWOOF S/O LATE ABDUL RASHEED AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS NO.33, 6^TH MAIN , 6^TH CROSS NEW GURAPPANA PALYA BTM LAYOUT, 1^ST STAGE BANGALORE-560 029.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI A.S. PARASARA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BANGALORE RURAL BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 034 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶13

THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BANGALORE RURAL BDA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 034.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R1 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS FILED ON 26.07.2021 FOR GRANT OF TEMPORARY PERMITS UNDER SECTION 87(1)(D) PENDING APPLICATIONS FOR RENEWAL OF PERMITS NO.23/0607 AND 25/06-07 AND DIRECT THE R1 TO ISSUE THE TEMPORARY PERMITS AS PRAYER FOR IN THE APPLICATION VIDE ANNEXURES-AQ AND AR IN RESPECT OF VEHICLES NO.KA51/B-4744 AND KA 55-2934 CORRECTED AS PER THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 7.2.2022 IN THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF AND ETC.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner who was granted with stage carriage permit which expired on 13.06.2011 submitted a representation on 21.01.2015 for renewal of the permit before respondent No.1. Pending consideration of the said application, the petitioner submitted applications to grant temporary permits in terms of Section 87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 26.07.2021. Being aggrieved by inaction of respondent No.1 in not considering the said applications, petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.21075/2021. This Court by order dated 7.12.2021 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent

¶21

¶22

No.1 to consider the application dated 26.07.2021 submitted by the petitioner for grant of temporary permit in the light of Section 87(1)(d) of the M.V. Act.

¶23

The respondent No.2 exercising the power delegated by respondent No.1 under Rule 55 (ix) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, issued an endorsement dated 17.1.2022 at Annexures-BJ and BK, rejecting the applications for grant of temporary permit stating that the permit granted in favour of the petitioner has expired and is not operating the service. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pending consideration for grant of permit, the petitioner is entitled for grant of temporary permit in the light of Section 87(1)(d) of the M.V. Act. Hence, he submits that impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2 is contrary to Section 87(1)(d) of the M.V. Act.

¶25

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1-State submits that permit granted in favour of

¶26

¶27

the petitioner expired long back in the year 2011 and as on today, the petitioner is not operating the stage carriage permit and in the absence of renewal of the permit, impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2 is in accordance with Section 87(1)(d) of the M.V. Act and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶28

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶29

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶30

Section 87(1)(d) of the M.V.Act specifies that the Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority may without following the procedure laid down in Section 80, grant permits to be effective for a limited period pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit. The said Section does not specifies that as on the date of filing of the applications for grant of temporary permit, the petitioner should be operating stage carriage permit or should be holding valid permit. Hence, impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2 is contrary to Section 87(1)(d) of M.V. Act and the same is not sustainable in law.

¶31

¶32

Rule 55 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, specifies that the Regional Transport Authority may delegate by general or special resolution recorded in its proceedings and subject to certain terms and conditions may delegate the Power to the Secretary and the Secretary may grant or refuse to grant temporary permit or the case may for special permit.

¶33

The second respondent in terms of power delegated to him by the RTA has issued the impugned endorsement and the same cannot be said to be one without jurisdiction. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i) The writ petition is allowed

¶36

ii) Impugned endorsement dated 17.1.2022, issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure- BK and BJ respectively are hereby quashed.

¶37

iii) Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to reconsider the application dated 26.07.2021 were Annexures-AQ and AR and pass appropriate order in accordance with the

¶38

¶39

provision contained in Section 87(1)(d) of the Act within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of

¶40

this order.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Sri Abdul Rawoof v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Abdul Rawoof v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Nandini Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Ambika G Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Bambino Associates Vs the State of Karnataka

S B Shadakshara Reddy Vs Additional Commissioner of Transport and Secretary Ksta

Sri H R Renuka Prasad Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Khoday India Limited Vs Excise Commissioner