Partly allowed

H Raviprakash Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2024WP/7217/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka directed the respondents to release the petitioner's seized bus. The Court held that seizure was invalid without the prior notice mandated under Section 55(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and ordered release subject to furnishing documentation.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of directing respondents to release the seized bus within one week, subject to petitioner furnishing All India Permit and road tax receipts.

H Raviprakash Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:13197 WP No. 7217 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 7217 OF 2024 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

H RAVIPRAKASH REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS SON OF LATE H RAJGOPAL REDDY RESIDNET OF NO 2A, SITARAM NIVAS K C ROAD, BALLARI-583 101 ALSO RESIDING AT MAJESTIC, OPP. GANESH TEMPLE MEENAKSHI TRAVELS OFFICE BENGALURU 560 009.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR H G, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRSENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT MS BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶13

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE NAMSAI, GOVERNMENT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH ARUNACHAL PRADESH 792 103.

¶14

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER BANGALORE (NORTH), YESHWANTHPURA BENGALURU 560 022.

¶15

THE MOTOR VEHICLE INSEPCTOR REGIONAL TRASNPORT OFFICE BENGALURU (NORTH), YESHWANTHPURA BENGALURU 560 022.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. S R KHAMROZ KHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:13197 WP No. 7217 of 2024

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ACTION OF THE R3 AND R4 IN SEIZURE OF BUS OF THE PETITIONERS BUS BEARING REGN. NO. AR-20-A-2384 PURSUANT TO SEIZURE OF BUS VIDE ANNEXURE-D VEHICLE CHECK REPORT DATED 03/03/2024 BY HOLDING ALL FURTHER PROCEEDING AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND BAD IN LAW AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has called in question the action of the respondents No.3 and 4 in seizing the vehicle bearing registration No.AR-20-A-2384 belonging to him for not furnishing the road tax receipt for having paid the road tax, and as well as the permit granted in favour of the petitioner to operate the tourist bus.

¶23

Petitioner claims to be the owner of the subject bus, and asserts that the subject bus is covered with All India Permit for using the subject bus for operating all over India.

¶24

Learned AGA has filed a memo enclosing a copy of the panchnama indicating that the subject bus was found having two different chassis numbers, and the petitioner having tampered the chassis number is liable to be prosecuted as stated under Section 192 (B)(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject bus is seized for allegedly tampering the chassis number without issuing prior notice as prescribed under Section 55(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:13197 WP No. 7217 of 2024

¶28

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

Section 55 of the Act, 1988, deals with the cancellation of registration, sub-section 5 of the act states that, if a registering authority is satisfied that the registration of a motor vehicle has been obtained on the basis of documents which were, or by representation of facts which was, false in any material particular, or the engine number or the chassis number embossed thereon are different from such number entered in the certificate of registration, the registering authority shall after giving the owner an opportunity to make such representation as he may wish to make (by sending to the owner a notice by registered post acknowledgement due at his address entered in the certificate of registration), and for reasons to be recorded in writing, cancel the registration. Therefore, the subject vehicle cannot be seized without filing the procedure prescribed under Section 55(5) of the Act.

¶30

In the instant case, the check report at Annexure-D does not indicate the quantum of arrears of tax payable by the petitioner. The petitioner has not placed any record to substantiate that the arrears of tax has been paid as of today.

¶31

Therefore, the petition stands disposed of directing the respondents No.3 and 4 to release the subject bus in favour of the petitioner subject to the following condition:

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:13197 WP No. 7217 of 2024

¶34

a) The petitioner shall furnish the copy of All India Permit for operating the bus for tourist purpose, and also furnish the receipt for having paid the arrears of road tax, if any as of today.

¶35

b) Upon furnishing of the said documents to the satisfaction, the respondents No.3 and 4 to release the subject vehicle in favour of the petitioner forthwith.

¶36

c) The said exercise shall be completed within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶37

d) Liberty is reserved with the respondents to initiate proceedings under Section 55(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

¶40

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

H Raviprakash Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H Raviprakash Reddy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. C. Anjali Vs the Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

Coromandel Sugars Limited Vs Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission

Doddathippeswamy Vs Asst Executiven Engineer

Smt.G. Veena Vs the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

Mahammad Rashid Vs the State of Karnataka

Muninanjappa Vs State of Karnataka