Allowed

Sri .G. Nagaraja v. the Regional Transport Officer

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2024WP/2363/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking to quash an appellate order that refused to revoke a driving school license. The court ordered the matter remitted for reconsideration after a joint inspection report.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside; matter remitted to appellate authority for fresh consideration in light of the inspection report.

Sri .G. Nagaraja Vs the Regional Transport Officer — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:8997 WP No. 2363 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2363 OF 2024 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI .G. NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LATE M GOVINDAPPA, PRINCIPAL,

¶8

SRI SAI VIDYA MOTOR DRIVING TRAINING SCHOOL, NEAR AYYAPPASWAMY TEMPLE COLLEGE ROAD, HOSAKOTE TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562 114.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

¶13

AND LICENSING AUTHORITY K R PURAM, BENGALURU 560 049.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT

¶15

AND ROAD SAFETY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT,

¶16

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES APPELLATE AUTHORITY, 1^ST FLOOR, A BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU 560 027.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.RUEBEN JACOB, AAG AND SRI. B.S. GURUSWAMY, AGA)

¶20

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 15.06.2023 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.SSAAA/PA-02/PR-07/20-21 BY THE R2 AT ANNEXURE-M TO THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION. AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:8997 WP No. 2363 of 2024

¶24

ORDER

¶25

In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order dated Annexure-D dated 11.05.2020 passed by the 1^st respondent refusing to revoke licence / permission granted in favour of the petitioner, which was upheld by the 1^st appellate authority – 2^nd respondent, which dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AAG for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶27

On 21.02.2024, this Court passed the following order:-

¶28

“Heard in part.

¶29

Learned AAG on instructions submits that the concerned officials of the respondents would conduct inspection of the Driving School of the petitioner on 26.02.2024 in relation to the renewal of the license of the petitioner and submit a report on the next date of hearing.

¶30

Submission is placed on record.

¶31

The concerned officials of the respondents are directed to conduct inspection of the Driving School of the petitioner in relation to renewal of the license of the petitioner on 26.02.2024 at 3.00 PM and submit a report on the next date of hearing.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:8997 WP No. 2363 of 2024

¶34

Re-list on 01.03.2024 at 02.30 PM for further hearing. Copy of this order to be furnished to the learned HCGP forthwith”.

¶35

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the concerned officials of the respondents conducted a joint inspection on 26.02.2024 and report in this regard has been filed by the respondents. The said report is placed on record.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has objections to the said report and if the impugned orders are set aside and matter is remitted back to the appellate authority – 2^nd respondent for reconsideration afresh bearing in mind the aforesaid report dated 28.02.2024 submitted by the respondents, petitioner would file pleadings, documents etc., before the appellate authority – 2^nd respondent, who may be directed to reconsider the appeal in accordance with law.

¶37

Learned AAG for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the respondents do not have any objections for setting aside of the impugned order at Annexure-M passed by the appellate authority and remitting the matter back for reconsideration afresh by providing an opportunity to both parties.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:8997 WP No. 2363 of 2024

¶40

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶43

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-M dated 15.06.2023 passed by the 2^nd respondent is hereby set aside.

¶44

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the 2^nd respondent for

¶45

reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶46

(iv) Petitioner undertakes to appear before the 2^nd respondent – appellate authority on 25.03.2024 .

¶47

(v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional pleadings, documents etc., before the 2^nd respondent – appellate authority.

¶48

(vi) The 2^nd respondent – appellate authority is directed to reconsider the appeal afresh in accordance with law bearing in mind the report dated 28.02.2024 submitted by the respondents.

¶49

(vii) The 1^st respondent – appellate authority is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of one month from

25.03.2024.

SD/-

JUDGE

Srl.

Sri .G. Nagaraja v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri .G. Nagaraja v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Venkateshappa Vs Sri. Obalaiah

K Ramachandra Reddy Vs L Channakeshava Reddy

Sri Chiranjeevi K Vs Lokesh Reddy

Dr Madhukar G Angur Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Smt. Srimathi Navada Vs Smt. v. Supriya

M/s. Mangalore Chemicals and Vs the Principal Commissioner of