Disposed¶37

Bhimappa Mahadev Lalaki v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Oct 2025WP/107901/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Dharwad; WP No. 107901 of 2025 (GM-RES); M. Nagaprasanna J.; order dated 27-10-2025; writ of mandamus; vehicle seizure; motor vehicle tax demand; Section 49 Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules; no unilateral seizure without notice and hearing; RTO/IMV Bagalkote; ARTO Jamkhandi; Maruti Ertiga Regn. PY-01/CV-5036; apprehension of petitioner not accepted; action for tax only per Section 49; liberty reserved to approach appropriate fora; petition disposed; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; AGA V.S. Kalasurmath; counsel S.C. Bhuti.

What did the court decide?

No mandamus or restraint issued; petition disposed with the observation that any action for demand of tax against the petitioner shall be only in terms of Section 49 of the Rules, and liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach appropriate fora. ¶37

Bhimappa Mahadev Lalaki Vs State of Karnataka — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents Nos. 3 to 5 may seize the petitioner's vehicle (Maruti Ertiga, Regn. No. PY-01/CV-5036) or demand tax from him otherwise than in accordance with law, specifically the procedure under Section 49 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules (issuance of notice, hearing, and subsequent demand of tax).

¶26

Court's answer

In light of the learned AGA's submission that under Section 49 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules unilateral seizure cannot take place and can occur only after issuance of notice, hearing the petitioner, and tax being demanded later on, the petitioner's apprehension that no procedure would be followed in law could not merit any acceptance.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

According to the submission of the learned AGA, if action is to be initiated against the petitioner for demand of tax, it shall be only in terms of Section 49 of the Rules (Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules), i.e., with prior notice and hearing.

¶35

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to knock at the doors of the appropriate fora, and the petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (M. Nagaprasanna, J.), Writ Petition No. 107901 of 2025 (GM-RES), order dated 27-10-2025: An advocate-petitioner sought a writ of mandamus restraining respondents 3-5 (RTO/IMV Bagalkote and ARTO Jamkhandi) from seizing his Maruti Ertiga ZDI car bearing Registration No. PY-01/CV-5036 or demanding tax from him 'once again'. The learned AGA, on instructions, submitted that in terms of Section 49 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules unilateral seizure of the vehicle cannot take place; it can occur only after issuance of notice, hearing the petitioner, and tax being demanded later on. Accepting that submission, the Court held that the petitioner's apprehension that no procedure would be followed in law could not merit acceptance, recorded that any action initiated against the petitioner for demand of tax shall be only in terms of Section 49 of the Rules, reserved liberty to the petitioner to knock at the doors of the appropriate fora, and disposed of the petition. Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14318 WP No. 107901 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 107901 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

BHIMAPPA MAHADEV LALAKI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, POST: HANAGANDI, TQ: RABAKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOTE – 587 315.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. S. C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT AND ROAD SAFETY, I FLOOR, A BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, SHANTHI NAGAR WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU – 560 027.

¶12

Digitallysigned byVISHALNINGAPPAPATTIHAL
VISHALNINGAPPAPATTIHAL Location:High Court ofKarnatakaDharwadBenchDate:2025.10.2815:45:56+0530

¶13

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (RTO), R/BY THE INSPECTOR OF MOTOR VEHICLES (IMV), BAGALKOTE DISTRICT, BAGALKOTE – 587 101.

¶14

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (RTO), BAGALKOTE DISTRICT, BAGALKOTE – 587 101.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (ARTO), JAMKHANDI TALUK, JAMKHANDI – 587 311, BAGALKOTE.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, AGA FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14318 WP No. 107901 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 5 NOT TO SEIZE THE VEHICLE OF THE PETITIONER VIZ, MARUTI ERTIGA ZDI, ERRDAZB CAR BEARING REGISTRATION NO. PY-01/CV-5036 OR DEMAND TAX ONCE AGAIN FROM THE PETITIONER, AND DIRECT THE CONTESTING RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE COSTS OF THESE PROCEEDINGS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a

¶26

direction by way of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.3 to 5 not to seize the vehicle or demand tax, except in accordance with law.

¶27

The learned AGA on instructions would submit

¶28

that in terms of Section 49 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, unilateral seizure of the vehicle cannot take place, it can be only after issuance of notice and hearing the petitioner and tax being demanded later on.

¶29