Remanded

Raghavendra S/O Virupakshappa Halavi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jan 2023WP/101287/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged refusal of auto rickshaw registration/permit endorsement. Court relied on 2013 precedent, remanded matter to authorities for reconsideration within three months and set aside the endorsement.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement dated 15.07.2015 set aside; matter remanded to Respondent No.2 to reconsider and pass appropriate order within three months.

Raghavendra S/O Virupakshappa Halavi Vs the State of… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 101287 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 101287 OF 2016 (MV-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAGHAVENDRA S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA HALAVI, AGE: 30 YEARS, R/O: ANKALI, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. S S BETURMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

¶13

R/BY REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,

¶14

REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI

¶15

THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶16

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, AND REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.VINAYAK KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1-R3)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 15/7/2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND TO DECLARE THAT, THE RESOLUTION NO.4 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN THE MEETING HELD ON 04.05.2012 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID.

¶20

¶21

WP No. 101287 of 2016

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the respondents.

¶25

It is the grievance of the petitioner in this petition that, the application made by the petitioner herein seeking registration of Auto Rickshaw was refused by way of endorsement dated 15.07.2015 (Annexure-B) to the writ petition.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, Mr. S.S.Beturmath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 23.09.2013 in W.P.Nos.40471-491/2013 (MV) passed by this Court, wherein, this Court directed the respondent-authorities to reconsider the issue relating to the purchase, registration and issuance of permit to the Auto Rickshaw in accordance with the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, the learned counsel

¶27

¶28

WP No. 101287 of 2016

¶29

for the petitioner seeks similar orders and interference of this Court in respect of the endorsement issued by the respondent-authorities.

¶30

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Court and also reiterates the statement made in the statement of the objections.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is the grievance of the petitioner that, the petitioner wants to purchase the Auto Rickshaw and also seeks permit insofar as the said Auto Rickshaw.

¶32

In this regard, I have carefully examined the impugned order dated 15.07.2015 (Annexure-B) to the petition and the order dated 23.09.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.40471-491/2013 (MV). Taking into consideration the factual aspects, the impugned endorsement dated 15.07.2015 was issued to the petitioner herein seeking some clarification in respect of some aspects and on

¶33

¶34

WP No. 101287 of 2016

¶35

reconsideration of the same, I am of the opinion that, there is no impediment for the respondent-authorities to refuse the application made by the petitioner as well as taking into consideration the law declared in W.P.Nos.40471-491/2013 (MV) dated 23.09.2013 and respondent-authorities shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶36

The endorsement dated 15.07.2015 (Annexure-

¶37

B) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent No.2 herein. The respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the matter afresh.

¶38

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

SVH

¶41

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Raghavendra S/O Virupakshappa Halavi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghavendra S/O Virupakshappa Halavi v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M G Srinivasa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Uday Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Krishna Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Gangawwa W/O Nagappa Kamble, Vs the Commanding Officer

Basavva W/O Subhash Madiwalar Vs the State of Karnataka

The Management of Nwkrtc, Vs Janardan Nair S/O Krishnan Nair