Sri K Narayana Rao vs The Principal Secretary on 7 December, 2010

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY or DECEMBER, 2910
BEFORE:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE n.v. SHYLENDRA KUMAR

Writ Petition No.10.'25O of 2010 (MW V O'

BETWEEN:

SR1 K NARAYANA RAO
AGE 65 YEARS

PRINCIPAL

JANATHA MOTOR DRIVING
TRAINING SCHOOL
N081/3, MM ROAD
FRAZER TOVVN
BANGALORE m 560 005

." ~ .9ET1fi?:0NER

[By  Cx 

1. THE     

'I'RANSFOI~?fT__ D~E:PAR*§*1y;:«;NT  ' '
GOVT. OF i§ARNATAK_A*._'> A  *
AB.LDG_..'AN5}Ex--;'_'  ' '

DR. AMBEDKAR";VVE.ED.§{i
BANGALOVRE 4.560 b 001 '  ._ '

2. THE J01N'1"1'RANS1»'ORT_ '
COMMISSIONER (ENFORCEMENT SOUTH)
13ANQAL0I2E"' " '

g '<1fRzmsP0R'r' DE1?A_RfrMEN'r
_ A acmf. 0.1? KARNATAKA
. j .. _VN;.s.BL.D(3n,_ ANNEX.
' _ DR§"«ANivBEDF'»AR VEEDHI

 ._BANGAL__ORE5 W 560 001 RESPONDENTS

{By Srri D Vijaya Kumar, AGA for R1]

'I'}.'l"i'S:I~'EI'I'I'T'ION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

V' C.oNsT1TU'1'1oN 0;? INDIA, PRAYING '10 QUASH ANNEXURE --

 _ D_D'1'_. 6.1 1.2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT N02 AND ETC.



2

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 13'
GROUP, THIS BAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOVVINGN

O R D E R

This writ petition by a private driving schoo1Vire_ii3.ing
persons in the skills of driving is without _

reason seeking for the foliowing reliefs:

“{1} Issue (1 Writ of certiorar.i:’
Annexure — D beClring”.;U)0.;Um3&§/Gfié)6;755§’F(Tj'”
3/eeofi—225/2009-?of~..date;:z v6._1v-1.2009″

issued by the Respond=ent_VNo.2′

b} Issue a writ”–.._c§;’ M’andamu’si directing the
Respondent i’io.1’to ‘eo_nsider his
representations, _ 18.1 1:.2CT09, 1 1.2009
and ‘1.2.2I0O9 ~per’_jAVnnexures F
&4.G,aifid._~_ . 4

c) 1111 M is’s.u’e” {:37 WI’it’woj’-_Ma__nda.§”nus directing the
iRes;oonde’rit_”No.I todmhold an equity in

-_<:uccordiznCe_ "»__"w_ii'h~ law on the
X representationpetitioner against the

"J_CTas' per Annexure–E, F & G, by himself
_ and to proceed with the departmental
actioriin aecordance with law and

A other Writ, order or direction
.w–hzch this Hon'ble Court may fit in the

Circumstances of the case including the
7- cost of this Writ Petition in the interest of

justice and equity."

5/

‘~ iisllplscrutinized…it cannot be said such scrutiny gives
to of action for the petitioner for insisting
. *.authoritie:.s should not respond or react to What they see.

— pl “This writ petition is absolutely without any merit for

” “issue of either a writ of certiorari or a Writ of mandamus

2. Not all responses/ replies by a public authorityinay

elicit issue of a Writ of certiorari and so also Anriextfreifl,

non–consideration or no response to each “and
representation can elicit issue of a’ .of’..man_c1ar_nus-Tancl
so also non–eonsideration of A:ine;rures}E?,”»iF it

representations.

3. The petition is lliiioltiattire and the relief
sought for is without it to whether a
licencee is the licence or
otherwise~–is_yla~~tnat:ter by the authority who
issues can be taken if the

manner of li’u._nction_ingV llof,-the petitioner — Driving Training

thatrthere’xeishbuld not be any scrutiny or that public

Q/e