High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri T S Sukumar vs The Principal Secretary on 11 September, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri T S Sukumar vs The Principal Secretary on 11 September, 2009
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 1 rm DAY OF' SEPFEMBER 2€:C3§f"%%«%T:4¢

THE i~ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. N. \zf5;NU--GoHaL5 Gé'vaij;Ai'.V 

AND :

BEFORE

W.P_.NO.g57'26 ox' 2oa9;Mm  . , %  

BETWEEN :

SRIT S SUKUMAR»   -A  

S/O LATE SR1T.§{.--»S}*3IN;IV1?;SA}I_'v.  _

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,' *NC'-.*".20_13; 

20TH MAIN, ASECOISIDPHASI5, J.I?.M,GAR

BANGALO_I?%'}.A_-'-566! 078,3 -.   
   PETITEONER

(BY: SRI.. §iE.S§3NI};§RA.RAJ'A GUPTA, ADVOCATE)
THE P15-Emcliv. _ i. S£?2sCi?;'I3TARY

T9 GQVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
'-.i'.RANSPOR'I' DEPARTMENT, MULTISTOREYED

 [ '~,BUILDIN§3,,I3R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
 VABANs:2A'L0RE(. 560001.

AL  cQ§.a:§:1ss1oNER FOR TRANSPORTS

(KARN UEAKA), MULTISTOREYED BUILDINGS
DR; ,A_MBEDKAR VEEUHI,

V.   = BANGALORE 560001.

.. . RESPQNDENTS

 (BY SMT. M.C.NAGASHREE, HOG?)



THIS WRIT PETYFION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES.
226 AND 227 OF' THE CONSTYTUTION <3? INQIA 
PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRICULAR ISSUED B'«'f---?'I_é'I~.i__}'_i',   
R2, m.22.7.o9, MARKED UNDER ANNWB, BY I$'SU}33_TGF"'~ " A-

WRIT OF CERTIORARI. ''   _ 9

THIS PETYFION COMING ON

HEARENC} IN 'E' GROUP THIS DAY, THE"--CoLrRTMA9E:
THE FGLLOWING:   i .     "

The  *_( ,fV  and
ciaiming to   eiiT'géiiiic}1fi§e$r<:»:ho'1der in respect of
lalge    Covereé by
Stage   Permits, Private

Services. VehieieV_:Pe:'ini§:s  on the basis of either a

 A;a1tI1ority'VeVf"'E}y means of a General Power of

Aiitofigieye,  V"e.ujft3pF&S€IIfi1]g before the Tmnsport

  Authezifies  purpose of getting Fitness Certificate

" 'A"::f*'*'rxeI3ew'ai__i3f Fimess Certificate, registrafion of vehicles

  of regstraticn, in the matter of payment of

  in the matter of ebtaining Special Permits as



contemplated under Section 88 of the Meter Vehicles

Act, 1988. He is aggrieveci by the Circular mstructieiis

dated 22.07.2309, as at Annexure ---- B whereby,...«tet41eV.':2§**?' " 

respenciem has directed all the 'I'ransport  T'  _  

communicate the orders,  _ 

of the vehicles and driving licenee  'for other

for which the registered  will  the
orders will have te be  exjjy  :«"speed Aépest, by
collecting necessary fee_.a1§;1._ 'V'Rs.25/~, is
necessary to    Aeeordirlg, to the
petitioz}.ee._if, §ave1'e to be given effect to, it

would advei'eeiy'V.   operation of vehieies, by

 flee pef'm:it_s,.vas the delay in receiving the

Vhfiuaeee...  and permits weuld hamper the

   epefetiene.'  filed this writ petition questioning

 _ the aforeeeie circular on various gonads.

   Heard iearned counsel for the petitioner and

 .:'_1ee;*::1ed HCGP. 



8. Sri. B.R.S. Gupta, learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that, the respondent 

undertaken a simiiar exercise by issuing a n_<_37;;ifiea"f5'en A ~

dated 09.01.1981, which when que_s§ioj;ed

in WP.No.4899/98, was stayed and gate}

petitien was disposed of. Dedsvipite the d'e_rde'1'*,* die
eirculasr as at Axmexure A;-~ B has. Viieeri-».i_ssued,vwhi'eh is,
Without authority of law quashed. It
was contended that, tijied V-cefitraxy to the
scheme ef'tf1ed..2§;5et fléadversely affect the

rights of the 'moterVVe§1ie1e_'eW:ners and operatore.

e,_;' " uResVpde_d'ei1teV:have filed detailed statement of

."0bjeetje:1$S,d$etfiting out therein, circumstances which

neeeSeif£ated"'_"_v.£o'gieeue of aforesaid CiI'CL11aI', to avoid

p:_1¥:)£ic izleenvenienee in the ofiiees ef the RTOS.

the respondems, by making available the

to the genera} public i.e., by sending the

"deed1:ner3ts by speed post, there wouid be many

/:

advantages, which are beneficial to the public at large

and would serve larger pubiic interest. The advantages

according to the respondents, are the foilcwing : -f -.

i) Repeated visits of the general jag’ L.

the ofiices only to xnowehema: t31eTif._V

documents are ready a «. ”

ofthe past; ‘A ._

ii) This system is alse’
empleyed perecns waste
their leave $ office

subsecg;1ent1yi””” H ” to; their

iii) at RTO OffIC€S is

iv) The’ at”: the respective offices
” deircte’ ‘V more attention to the
papers and dispose there
eéépegiiiiously in the absence of heavy

at the ofliees;

n V) x v._.’i”he system is made more transparent
in so far as the preparation and
dispatch of the documents by the lower
ievel stafi’ of the department can be

%.

/.,

vi)

easily menitored by ebseiving whether

the documents have been prepared and -f -I
sent on first come first served basis; __ .-

in many instances, the ewneree.

vehicles wouid

incorrect or bogus addre’eses_ in e1*der.v , ”
to use their vehieiee eemmieeio151_*-
of various offences and”Veeeape the

clutches of iaxéflby ‘u’;_1t.faeeab}e”a£VV

the address aecaameeby The
~:.-;yeten1_ of seiiéiiiigi of hvfieeienents
oniy. bait to
by the

Veliicliev ov€1ier$”Si11ce.aec0rdh1g to the

.;mpugnedf documents sent

By Peseijifé not delivered at the

” _;ad(iVree;s_.V “I:1eni’30r:ed, are to be returned
«’ to ..1;.he i3’epa1’Unent and not to be

= X v;;.a)

” fefififeefed.

‘A’e§?etem greatly avoids scope for
.-._”uneLemp1fleue middlemen, agents and
” brokers from fleecing the genera}

public by retaining the deeuments with
them. and demanding money frcnn them

for delivering the documents to them.

i

have fL:=;’:t’1§_.s1’1e(i_”‘. e ”

It is the experience of the department

that even authorised dealers of motorgt

vehicles, let aione unauthorrigeti 4′ A4

brokers and agents, have tlje l H

general public on a false” gxretejgt A
the RTO oflices have net delivered

documents. As a.»resu1t Viv..h’§a.teve3:’t;he..,
department does tO’uii’}T:l.j)I'()’V(‘3 “Vi1rl’age:§-.,
of the deparj£ment”‘ in
Ultimately, I – – ll” are
beund ts} blame-the “fer the

of the

de*cuI;’1’e1ilts;..

adopted is a
« A . ‘intended at greatest

-to ‘tli;e’,<g;i"ee;i:est number of people.

HCGP contended that, keeping in

vies: noticed at the efiice of RTO, it

Iteeessery in larger public interest to stream the

Vtiespatch of documents te public and hence,

M fleet' circular was issued. Learned HCGP made

V' A " submissions in terms of the defence in the statement of

L

,/g

8
objections fiied to the writ petition and supported the

action of the respondents in the matter of issue of the

impugied oizeular. Learned I-ICGP also contended

the circular having been issued in public Interefstgei

not be interfered with on any it

too at the behest of certain vested ieetereeets. 1 i V

6. After the matter was some

10.09.2009, it was pointed toV””t.tite’v’:
Government Advocate’ ” matter ef

delivery/(iesf)atoi1_v like permits and
fitness instruefions as per

Axmexuxe —~ 153 is to.eéii1se serious inconvenience to

owexiers/operatofs”‘ef public service vehicles and also

tfie. “e’i::§1:’_i.hence, the circular at Annexure —~ B

may A}CI’.f?;: to provide for reiaxation, so that

” purpose, as highlighted in the statement of

‘”c§bjeCti,o31s, eeuld be achieve-ti. The Joint Commissioner

‘:’of..Tz:ansport, who was present in the court in the later

X

/5’.

part of the day and the learned Advocate Genera},”.:.:i n_V

consultation with the Officer present in .;. A4

submitted that, relaxation or a ”

to Armexure – B would be issued.

?. Today when the fer

further hearing learned HCGP ciijcular
dated 10.09.2009 issuedA–«:i._ii sending of the

documents by Speed _ reads as

follows:

.:.>’.1§&.~ V f’e:9 ez: V4
agent: g:uo:s”aL~;.r>§; ”

V’ _i.,,goe;”_,ga’: £éJ:®u«§aa’ra»a»:;ee*-~n~er~r>o,
‘ V ‘ ;=.’é,.L**.~*~-§;%;–.9e::r.
. es; egg me: we $c’3uSs:.’:’ maZ)s.:=::én’9’a$:;£
_ seemae eaeémean seems ficfiéeefizg med gem
AA Tmsageem genes; aeemnag. meat; swam 3:33:35
, eeeenea 65596 meg, mam eg eeeseeoe
ezfiéseesfieag ease eaésoe afimaofi sesaazsexses em

\

ggmagi éwdaazgfi. 5; 5o§_1e3c3:>eZ3_3 w¢;c$wtg
zmszssacs m!.:ae_,dosa gmneb uasam ms?’ meme mg
aaefidwoso fiocizqrrivrt essgiosamgaenafozo :,;%e$t3s:e

mad.

(Emphasis \ .. V ~

8. The respondents by the afc3g::;’*es%a:i4<t1 i_

10.09.2009 have made it ciear that,«'i1}.h:z;atteré:~ V

to the sending of documents 1i.1'§EiftVv..1x;}1r.:_VreIViet*.=v§§.i'vi3f fitness
Certificates and the ' dated

22.07.2{1{}9"V(fs4*1.f;<i;x§;i:§*§é'-~ f}3}.VV.}s;v..rik1A1'}§em:1:it holder or

‘ V ‘ V thei? :=311tI1z}x*iTrepresentative.

AA I9. 2121: View of the aforasajd clarification and

“‘:éia§:a.%:2i;.:§n cf part of the conteznts of the circular dateé

_42’2..G§”?.2009 i.e., Armexure — B, the gievance of the

k

/:

11

petitionei’ has been weli addresses? by the responui$:gt$g:’

and hence, the gievance sought to be put fotiilgij Z T

writ petition does not remain for cons§ide;f.at1§;1i_ ‘: ” w H

The Writ petition stands pf

INV