Disposed

The Head Mistress v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2024WP/6991/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A school challenged rejection of renewal of its school bus permit by the RTO. The court found the rejection rested on a resolution of the Deputy Commissioner/RTA rather than Rule 6(2) of the 2012 Rules, and remitted the application to respondent No.5 for reconsideration in light of that rule and T.J. Damodara.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement reconsideration ordered; respondent No.5 to re-decide permit renewal application in accordance with Rule 6(2) and T.J. Damodara within four weeks.

The Head Mistress Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:31704 WP No. 6991 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.6991 OF 2023 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE HEAD MISTRESS ST. ANTONY LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL CUTINHOPADAV, MALLUR POST, MANGALORE – 575 001 DAKSHINA KANNADA REP. BY ITS PRESENT HEAD MISTRESS MS. ANITHA VIOLET D’SOUZA W/O. MR. MOVIN S. D’CRUZ AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA SHENOY M., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶12

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORTATION AND ROAD SAFETY 1^ST FLOOR, T.T.M.C. BUILDING,

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31704 WP No. 6991 of 2023

¶15

K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 027.

¶16

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANGALORE – 574 325 DAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶17

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER MANGALORE REGION, MAIDAN ROAD, OPP. NERHU MAIDAN ATTAVAR, MANGALORE – 575 001 DAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶18

REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MANGALORE – 575 001 DAKSHINA KANNADA REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. ... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI K. MANJUNATH, HCGP FOR RESPONDENTS-STATE)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 26.09.2022 BEARING REG. NO.PRA.SA.PRA.DA.KA.MAM. B- 3Y.VA/1434/2022-23 ISSUED BY THE R-5 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; DIRECTING THE R-5 TO RENEW HIS VEHICLE PERMIT FOR THE SCHOOL BUS TATA LP 709/38 BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA 19B 5242, HAVING ENGINE NO.497TC93DTZ838088 AND CHASIS NO.386513DTZ811265 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31704 WP No. 6991 of 2023

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Petitioner has called in question the impugned endorsement dated 26.09.2022 issued by respondent No.5 and seeking a writ of mandamus, directing respondent No.5 to renew his vehicle permit for the school bus bearing Registration No.KA-19-B-5242.

¶26

Heard Sri Raghavendra Shenoy .M, learned

¶27

counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Manjunath, learned HCGP for the respondents-State.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge

¶29

the following grounds:

¶30

i. Rule 6 (2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles (Conditions for Vehicles Engaged in Transport of School Children) Rules, 2012 (‘the Rules 2012’ for short) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the condition requirement for the Rules is that the vehicle must possess a valid contract carriage permit issued under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’ for

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31704 WP No. 6991 of 2023

¶32

short) and the petitioner possessed a carriage permit issued under Section 74 of the MV Act.

¶33

ii. That the decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of T.J. Damodara (Karnataka United School and Light Motor Vehicle Drivers’ Union (R)) Vs. State of Karnataka and Others¹ (T.J. Damodara) is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.

¶34

iii. Petitioner possessed a valid fitness certificate, permit ought to have been renewed by the respondent.

¶35

iv. That the endorsement issued at Annexure-A is contrary to the law declared by this Court in the case of Sharadamma vs. The State of Karnataka² (Sharadamma) .

¶36

Per contra , learned HCGP for the respondent-

¶37

State, taking this Court to Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 6 of the

¶38

1 2013 SCC Online Kar 10353

¶39

2 W.P. No.21991/2019 & connected matters D.D. 20.08.2019

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31704 WP No. 6991 of 2023

¶41

Rules, 2012, submits that the age of the vehicle engaged in transport of school children shall not be more than 15

¶42

years from the date of its initial registration and submits that the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.5 is in accordance with law, since the vehicle purchased by the petitioner was in the year 2006 and 15 years have already lapsed. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of T.J. Damodara.

¶43

This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶44

Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules, 2012 reads

¶45

as under:

¶46

“ 6. Conditions to be observed.–

¶47

(1) x x x

¶48

(2) The age of the vehicle shall not be more than Fifteen (15) years from the date of its initial registration as on the date of entry to transport school children.”

¶49

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:31704 WP No. 6991 of 2023

¶50

The Rule stipulates that the age of vehicle shall

¶51

not be more than 15 years from the date of its initial registration for transportation of school children. The CoOrdinate Bench of this Court, in T.J. Damodara ’s case taking into consideration Rule 6 of Sub-Rule (2), observed that the legislative intent attaching due significance to the “public safety” is evident from the object and reasons of the Act, the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in T.J. Damodar’s case observed that the Rules stipulate that no owner or operator of a motor vehicle shall permit the use of the vehicle as a Transport Vehicle for carriage of School Children unless he carries a valid contract carriage permit issued under Section 74 of the MV Act, permitting the use of vehicle for the said purpose and Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules, 2012, the age of the vehicle shall not be more than 15 years from the date of its initial registration as on the date of entry to transport school children.

¶52

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:31704 WP No. 6991 of 2023

¶53

On perusal of the impugned endorsement, it indicates that renewal of the permit for school bus came to be rejected upon the resolution passed by the Deputy Commissioner and President, Regional Transport Authority and not the Rule 6(2) of Rule 2012, on the said ground, the matter needs to be remitted back to respondent No.5 to reconsider the application of the petitioner for renewal of permit bearing in mind Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 6 of Rules, 2012 and the decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in T.J. Damodar’s case stated supra and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶54

With the above observations, the writ petition

¶55

stands disposed of.

¶56

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶57

MBM

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

The Head Mistress v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Head Mistress 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Ramanna Vs Sri. Athaulla

The Executive Engineer Vs M. Anand

Sri P Pavan Vs Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

The Superintendent of Central Excise Vs Sri G Ramachandra G P

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

The Divisional Controller Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sri v R Muninarasimhaiah