"W A ree, HCG P) IN THE HIGH COURT OP KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. vENuGOPALAI_O"OVw'DA T' WRIT PETITION NO.27965;:OI= :2AOO,9"«(_Mi\f).:I': = BETWEEN: Sri K. Jayavarmaraja Ballaf _ S/o.Late Sri Pandéyarajafiakkaf ' Aged about 62 years __ M/s.Balfai Motor Service 'I I Baliai Mahal, Hampanakatta" 7 Mangalore ._ I H PETITIONER (By Sri B.G.RaIg%juIam'; A;EvOI_cat'e-,I') ' AN The Secreté'r.yAI . A RegI'ona.E TranSpOrt»VAutr'IOIE't:y A , 'Dakshina "Kannad'a» _____ H , §"~'!ang'alOi=éP RESPONDENT V "THIS 'IAI.P.PIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 _ & 227 =..OFvTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO rQUASH~ THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN 2 .APPE_AL N'O.3.22/09 DATED 12.08.2009, VIDE ANNEXURE--D , SEEKS SEVEN DAYS TIME TO PRODUCE THE _I~_D'OC'L3'iVIENTS OF THE REPLACER VEHICLE BEFORE THE RESPONDENT AND TO OPERATE ON THE ROUTE FORTHWITH. This petition coming on for preliminary hearing.'o:h'this day, the Court made the following: ORDER
The petitioner who was a s?:a§e”ca_ri=iag;e.lVop.erato’r,
filed an application before the
replacement of the vehicle””vf.rTom The
respondent directed .t”heA p.e’titi’o.ner:”V.to pro’du”ce the
documents of replacer vehi-cie’ls’i’molta_neouxs’ly. Aggrieved
by the said 03rd:-r:_’dated respondent,
petitioner’ N’C..,1″22/’2’U09’V:in the Karnataka State
Transport (.’i<STAT' for short). The
petitioner had peirmitlkynihi-clh was valid up to 28.22.2009.
"V'~«C'ons'.i.:Clier§n:g the fac'ts~~–«a'nd circumstances of the case, the
iitsiorder dated 13.3.2009 aliowed the appeal,
setsVasidei.th'ei.i::impugned order of the respondent and
"»,.,_.«pliclyirectedthe respondent to release the existing vehicle
No.58/DK/99~00, subject to the condition
the appellant placing the documents of the replacer
it learned HCGP. X
vehicte within 90 days from release of the existing vehicle
from the permit. The petitioner could not comply w_'i'th:'_*th'e_
condition imposed in the said order. Hence,
application for extension of time before .4_'_iie~s._ be
prayed for 90 days extension of tirne "a
produce the documents of repia_Vcer_ vehicle and»v.,tAo'«:.co–ndone
the laches on his part. __.The jfribuivnal-»_,by .i'ts'–o_rde::§* dated
12.8.2009, rejected the assigned
by the Tribunal ytoiirejyectiythe' a that,
(i) keep up the
…. Tribunal and
{ii}, : ‘ Thuatf,-~they’a–p_p’l~ic’ation for extension was not
days time granted by the
Tnri’bun__a_l_A.,. It also held that, the appiication is
‘«..A:,ide_void of merit. Aggrieved by the said
this writ petition has been filed.
, 2.” I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner
4
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that, if the petitioner is granted 7 days time to produce the
documents of replacer vehicie before the respondentgahe
would place the same on or before u
counsel submitted that, the reasons for not l
the order of the Tribunal at AnnexiJre¥i3« iis”–«ion.;4aAcc>oqnt*:Vofl”:
reasons beyond the control of the 1’pVetitionerA”vandV
detailed in the writ petition.
4. Learned HC<3i?V_'_subrr§'itteti 'tn-art, the" petitioner
has not been operating and
has even"sbidiEheggg§é§h:c:ief_'ong3rofS.2oo9 and he has not
shown any ubo-na extension of time. Learned
counsel ..submui'tted=that;- in." the facts and circumstances of
5':V.theVcase;."irthe'Tifribunvalirxias justified in rejecting the prayer
"for'V'V%'ofV:'_itime and the condition imposed in the
order._dat_ed having not been complied with, the
3""'~.__p*etitionerV__iis not entitled to the relief.
if S. The point for consideration is:
/7
Whether the Tribunal has considered the
application of the petitioner for extension of
time in the proper perspective?
6. The appeal of the petitioner was allowedjbyf”t.he.,,
tribunal on 13.3.2009. 90 days time was ‘
which expired on 12.6.2009. The application in
was no doubt filed after about
originally granted. For thei–I:apse oh.__the_: “the
appellant/petitioner, he,-_had the”exp.lanation.
Without even considering”‘théi’»V;.vca’uise.,::shown in the
applicatio’n”,’ iV%?’ribu*na’l, icuri’o’Vusly has held “the
application is has accordingly rejected
the application.” wV|f..en~-._the”Tribunal has not even adverted
“‘~..t_o fa-cts…_state’d’in–ithe application nor the contentions
V*:ur’ge:cii_fo–r:_:’c.o’ns’ideration to grant extension of time, its
con’c_lusion.”Vth_at the application is devoid of merit, is
‘z,.,.,.».”‘.i_,rregular,”if not illegal. In my view, the Tribunal has not
“:consii’d’Aered the matter and after merely referring to the
K”–dwearlier proceedings, without even considering the cause
t
/f
shown, has rejected the application. On the said groi_.__z_nd,
the order at Annexure-D is Eiabie to be set aside.
7. Keeping in view the fact
petitioner/appellant is seeking only…?,__cfays”‘e§*..tt(‘) 23.9.2009. It is made deer that, if the
o.peVtitiofner does not compiy with the condition i.e., produce
documents of the replacer vehicle, he shall not be
/3
7
entitled to any further extension of time and the decision
of the respondent turning down the request of the
petitioner, shall stand undisturbed.
In the result, the order at Arinexure-Q.__”stan’d.sWV.
quashed. The petitioner is granted 7 days ‘
23.9.2009 to produce the documents of ._rep|acewr”‘«v_ehi’ci’e
before the respondent and the respo’n_dent to co’nsi~deriV
matter in accordance with |aw.”‘vr..,.V:’If.the. d*ocu’m.ents-ivoffi the
replacer vehicle is not .p”ro_duced” orlyerbererei23′;i9.2oo9,
the respondent has no obligation”to’Vcon:ts*i.d.e.r_the request of
the petii;:ivoner.t’ ” it
ordered Lia ace’: aiiinfi iy.:_I:-
Sd/-V
FUDGE