1 W.P.3-47'O5;U9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE:'-ff-V.V
DATED THIS THE 27*" DAY OF N0vEMBER__2iiEi9 .
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE H.N:=I§iAGA,T\AiO'T¥!A.T§J..'DA'*s~.':..-,__
WRFT PETITION No';347o52'2n";§_{Mv>A.57* it A
BETWEEN: 3'?
Mrs.K.ZEBEDHARf w/0 Mr.K';P.ABD_UL p;:HADE,R D
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS A
NEKKELADY VJLALGE
UPPINANGADE POST, T 33-.9
DAKSHINA :»<AN_NADAj" ., 2
PETETJONER
ND:
__THE S,E.i:f.3RE*E"ARYV" " _
A REDIoNAL,TRANsRoRT"AuTRoRTTY
T'-.DAKSH_JNA :»<.ANArA.D_A, MANGALORE
RESPONDENT
(By Es'rn_{;A.Dv._\z1;}A}*xf_\!A,AGA)
.. VDTH:.s=--v'vRTT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
é OETHE CONSTITUTION OF FNDIA PRAYTNG TO OUASH THE
"OR=DE~R.fPASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT
' "APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN REVFSJON PETFTFON NO. 92/2009 DT.
' v%..8,._7_f;2009 VJDE ANX--C.
<7'L\'%
2 wt P.3<i7OSzO9
Tiirs wan PETFHON COMING ON FOR PriELr:\/:ii\5..A"Ry
HEARING TH!S DAY, THE COURT MADE THE Fottowinas}--V.fl-_
ORDER
Smt.A.{).Vi§aya, learned Addi.Go’veriti_rne’nt
directed to take notice for respondent;
2. On 18.02.1993,» _the ‘Ftegvidf|EiiVV”‘Transpor’t” Authority,
Dakshlna Kannada, Mangatore; ‘g_r’antedi*a:’ Stag:e’>§3arriage Permit in
favour of the petitioneg. ‘were assigned
and 30 days time producing vehicle
documents. documents only on
20.02.2O09:.7_g detay on the part of the
petitioner; the”=r4espondent;’issued an endorsement refusing to
considergthe documents produced by the petitioner on the ground
:’V’t_hat:’the:re is Aggrieved by this endorsement, the petitioner
fiied~~pe”tivti:on before the Karnataka State Transport
‘h””‘.’\ppetiat’e_’ T_ri’bu.nai,A Bangalore (for short, the ‘Tribuna!’) in
and the same came to be dismissed as not
mai’n.tawin’ajb’ée under the impugned order dated 18.07.2009 Annexure
. __i~ience this writ petition.
3 W.P.34?O5!O9
3. It is seen from the record that the permtt grantehdgin
favour of the petitioner was called in question before the
R.P.Nos.678./2007, 862/2007 and 866/2007′. Learnediteiounset’ i}5r i
the petitioner submits that an order of :s’ta’y'”was’..granted’«_byvthe
Tribunai in R.P.No.678/2007′ and connectedmatters.”_..yA.F’ina}.ty;
26.12.2008, the Tribunai dismissed –t.h’ei_revis.iVon__ petitio.ns;-.r’in’ the
4%
1
circumstances, there was nodeiay ip…prb”duci»ng the documents by
the petitioner before the respondent. “–‘!_\_/itshnut’V’cd_rts:idie.ring this aspect
of the matter, the Tribunat committed” dismissing the
revision petition filed §3Ef:fffDaFi9_;F in._«~F’..ji”‘..Notiéiéi/2009.
4. i_<a.rnataka Motor Vehicle Rules
1989, the respondent-is'riavinig»the«p~ower to extend the time beyond
the statutory period of one m'onth'"to produce the vehicle documents,
if there good grounds 'a-n–d'Vsufficient cause.
if reasons stated above, the foilowing:
ORDER
t)- The writ petition is hereby aiiowed.
4 W.P.34705:’09
H) the impugned order dated 18,e7.2oeejf-[r.e_
R.P.No.92/2009 Annexure — ‘C’ passed by_tide”T’riVbjr%.gai§-‘.._. .
and the endorsement issuedwby the.”re’spt:_nde’rtt’-on0′
20.02.2009 are hereby quashed’ 3
Hi) The matter” ie remande–d_Tto.M the.”respdgdejntddr”fresh
consideration in ;_accordar*-.–seA.wittitaw.
Ordered accordingtyf ‘
Smt.A.D.Vij.ag,:a,_;f\dd_!–.Gp.\rerrtrrtent Advocate is
permitted to fife rrrerfi-e three weeks from today’
Sd/-
JUDGE
dd?” ~.