Dismissed

Sri S C Shivakumar v. the Chief Traffic Manager

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2023WP/12779/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking direction to KSRTC to consider representations. The court dismissed the petition because the respondent Corporation stated it never received the alleged representations, making the writ application inapplicable.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner was not granted the requested direction to consider representations as the writ itself was dismissed.

Sri S C Shivakumar Vs the Chief Traffic Manager — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:26818 WP No. 12779 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.12779 OF 2018 (S-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI S.C.SHIVAKUMAR, S/O LATE S.B.CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.10/183, LAKSHMIPUR, 2^ND BLOCK, HMS ROAD, ARASIKERE TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.M.C.BASAVARAJU., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER, K.S.R.T.C., K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C., TUMAKURU DIVISION, TUMAKURU - 572 101.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶17

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

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:26818 WP No. 12779 of 2018

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Sri.M.C.Basavaraj., learned counsel for petitioner and Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for respondents have appeared in person.

¶21

The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking Writ of mandamus directing the respondents - KSRTC to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner on 05.06.2015 and 10.10.2017 addressed to the second respondent vide Annexures-K & L.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner & respondents have urged several contentions.

¶23

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

¶24

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the respondent in presenting her arguments vehemently contended that the office of the KSRTC, in particular the second respondent is not in receipt of the representations alleged to have been submitted by the petitioner. She argued by saying that detailed statement of objections are filed stating that the Corporation is not in

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:26818 WP No. 12779 of 2018

¶26

receipt of the representations. Learned counsel therefore, submits that appropriate order may be passed.

¶27

Suffice it to note that, if the Corporation is not in receipt of the representations, question of issuing Writ of Mandamus and consequently, directing the respondent to consider the representations, does not arise for consideration.

¶28

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed .

¶29

In view of dismissal of the Writ Petition, all pending interlocutory applications are disposed of.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Sri S C Shivakumar v. the Chief Traffic Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S C Shivakumar v. the Chief Traffic Manager

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

Ramappa Vs the Secretary

Sri Venkatappa Vs Smt Sonnamma

B N Umesh Vs the Mysore Paper Mills Ltd.

M/S. Eastern Silk Industries Ltd. Vs Shri Shafiulla

Naveen. L Vs the Managing Director and the Chairmen

Sri Charan Kumar Ur Vs the Managing Director