Allowed

Yeshodamma v. the Regional Transport Authority(Rural)

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2023WP/26187/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On the wife's writ petition challenging the delay in processing her application to transfer her husband's deceased-stage carriage permit, the court directed the R.T.A. to dispose of the transfer application within four weeks and considered the option of circulating the matter among members for speedy consideration.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed. The second respondent is directed to consider whether the application for transfer can be circulated by the first respondent among members within one week. In any event, the f

Yeshodamma Vs the Regional Transport Authority(Rural) — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:43060 WP No. 26187 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 26187 OF 2023 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

YESHODAMMA

¶9

W/O LATE K P RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS KOLALA

¶10

KOLALA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572140

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

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

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY(RURAL) H S R LAYOUT BANGALORE-560102 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶16

THE SECRETARY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY(RURAL) H S R LAYOUT

¶17

BANGALORE-560102

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, ADVOCATE)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:43060 WP No. 26187 of 2023

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD 17.10.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-K WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONBLE COURT.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner, who is the wife of

¶26

Sri. K.P.Ramachandraiah, has filed this petition for directions to the first respondent – the concerned Regional Transport Authority (Rural) – to consider her representation dated 17.10.2023 [ Annexure-K ] within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy this order. The petitioner contends that her husband [Sri. K.P.Ramachandraiah], who had held the Stage Carriage Permit in No.22/1988-89 [which is renewed previously for a period between 17.02.2022 and 16.02.2027], has died on 07.05.2023 and she has filed an application for transfer of the

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:43060 WP No. 26187 of 2023

¶29

permit as contemplated under Rule 83(2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 [for short, ‘ the Rules ] after causing publication of the application in Form No. KMV 54 as required under Rule 83(3) of Rules, but no decision has been taken thus far. Sri. A.S.Parasara Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. Bhojegouda T. Koller, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the respondents, are heard for final disposal of the petition.

¶30

Sri. A.S.Parasara Kumar submits that, as

¶31

required under Rule 83(1) of the Rules of 1989, the petitioner has informed the first respondent about the demise of her husband, and the petitioner, as contemplated under Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 [for short, ‘ the MV Act’ ], has also filed an application for transfer within 3 [three] months from the date of the demise for transfer of the permit, but this application has not been considered. The

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:43060 WP No. 26187 of 2023

¶34

statements made as regards the demise, the date of information to the first respondent and the publication of an application in Form No. KMV 54 are demonstrated. It is undisputed that the application is not yet considered, and therefore, there must be a direction.

¶35

Sri. A.S.Parasara Kumar further submits that the petitioner, in view of the stipulation in the second proviso to Section 82(2) of the MV Act, could have operated the vehicle for a period of 3 [three] months from the date of demise, and the petitioner as such is presently constrained to stop plying the vehicle and is put to greater difficulty. The assertion as regards hardship would generally be true, and must be duly considered. Hence, there must be a direction to the first respondent – the Regional Transport Authority (Rural) - to consider the petitioner’s application for transfer of the permit within a period of 4 [four] weeks from today and there must also be a direction

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:43060 WP No. 26187 of 2023

¶37

to the second respondent – the Secretary, the Regional Transport Authority (Rural) - to consider whether the petitioner’s application could be taken up by the first respondent by circulation as contemplated under Rule 54(6) of the Rules of 1989. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶38

Order

¶39

a) The petition is allowed, and the second respondent is directed to consider, within a period of 1 [one] week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, whether the petitioner’s application for transfer of the permit in No. No.22/1988-89 under Section 82 of the MV Act can be circulated amongst the members of the first respondent for consideration and also inform the petitioner about the same.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:43060 WP No. 26187 of 2023

¶42

b) In any event, the first respondent must consider and dispose of the petitioner’s application within an outer limit of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Yeshodamma v. the Regional Transport Authority(Rural)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yeshodamma v. the Regional Transport Authority(Rural)

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 Malathi a S Vs Mr H K Nagaraju

Sri. S.V. Somashekar Vs Sri. S. Ramachandran

Sri Mohammed Kaleem Vs M/S Maxworth Realty India Limited

M/S. Sukavaan and Kunal Vs M/S. Cultfit Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. Y C Manohara Vs the State of Karnataka

Guardian Healthcare Services Private Limited Vs Counfreedise Retail Services Limited