Disposed

Sri a Venugopal v. the Regional Transport Officer

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2024WP/851/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court issued a writ petition direction to the Regional Transport Officer to verify the non-use of a specific vehicle addressed in the petitioner's 2020 application and to pass appropriate orders within thirty days.

What did the court decide?

The respondent authority was directed to consider the petitioner's application dated 31.03.2020 and pass appropriate orders within thirty days.

Sri a Venugopal Vs the Regional Transport Officer — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:1272 WP No. 851 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 851 OF 2024 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI A VENUGOPAL S/O LATE ANJINAPPA, AGED 59 YEARS, R/AT 276, PARVATHINAGARA, ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT – 562 107.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. LOKESH R.,ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER CHANDAPURA KA-59, BENGALURU DISTRICT 562 106.

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SMT. JYOTI.M. MARADI., HCGP)

¶13

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO VERIFY THE NON-USE OF THE VEHICLE KA-01-D-1584 AND APPLICATION FOR NON-USE RECEIVED BY THE AUTHORITY ON 3103-2020 IN INWARD NUMBER 7467 IS NOT DISPOSED BY ANY DECISION AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO VERIFY THE PLACE OF NON-USE AND TO TAKE DECISION IN RESPECT OF SURRENDER APPLICATION AS PER LAW VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:1272 WP No. 851 of 2024

¶18

ORDER

¶19

In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

¶20

“ (a) Issue mandamus direction to the respondent authority to verify the non-use of the vehicle KA-01-D-1584 and application for non-use received by the authority on 31.03.2020 inward number 7467 is not disposed by any decision and to direct the respondent authority to verify the place of non-use and to take decision in respect of surrender application as per law vide Annexure-‘A’.

¶21

(b) to pass such order as deem fit under the circumstances of the case under situation to grant relief to the petitioner and to direct the respondent to take action as per law if the non-use vehicle is not found at the place declaration address in the interest of justice.”

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶23

It is the grievance of the petitioner that his application dated 31.03.2020 at Annexure–A submitted to the respondentauthority has not been considered so far by them nor any order has been passed on the same. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:1272 WP No. 851 of 2024

¶26

4. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent submits

¶27

that if reasonable time is given, they would consider and pass necessary orders on the said application.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and rival submissions, the respondent-authority is hereby directed to address the grievances of the petitioner and consider his application dated 31.03.2020 at Annexure–A and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29

6. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands

¶30

disposed of.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

Srl.

Sri a Venugopal v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri a Venugopal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Mohammed Akhtar Vs M/S Gtl Infrastructure Limited

Meera Murlidhar Bajaj Vs Anil Purshotam Bajaj

Sri K Vijayaraj Vs M/S Ritemed Pharma Retail Pvt. Ltd.

Sri.B.v. Devaraju Vs Sri. Venkatareddy

Dr. Davin Karkada Vs Lombard Memorial Hospital

Sri Ananda T Shetty Vs Sri Sanjeeva T Shetty