BY ITS SECRETARY v. SRI M E NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

Judgment

#1. J V SHIVAGANESH, S/O. VENKATACHALAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NO.520, 16TH MAIN, 15TH CROSS 4TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURUR-560 102.

(BY SRI B R SUNDARA RAJA GUPTA, ADVOCATE) AND:

#1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU RURAL, BANGALORE - 560102, BY ITS SECRETARY. …PETITIONER Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

#2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE CENTRAL HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 102.

#3. AGAKHAN, S/O. LATE. M. KAREEM KHAN, MAJOR, C-7-777, BDA FLAT, AUSTIN TOWN, BENGALURU-560 047. (BY SRI S H RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI M E NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION OF THE R-1 PASSED IN SL NO.27. SUBJECT NO.27/2023-24 DTD.01.10.2024 AND ENDORSEMENT DTD.10.12.2024 MARKED UNDER ANNX-J AND K BY ISSUE OF - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:196 WP No. 56 of 2025 A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents No.1 and 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate and the counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.

#2. This petition is filed to quash the resolution dated 01.10.2024 and endorsement dated 10.12.2024 marked at Annexures-J and K respectively. In terms of the said resolution and endorsement, the permit issued in favour of respondent No.3 is renewed by respondent No.1.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even before the renewal of the permit, the petitioner had objected to the earlier application seeking renewal of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:196 WP No. 56 of 2025 the permit and the petitioner has filed a revision petition challenging earlier order of renewal and when the said revision petition is pending before the Appellate Authority for consideration, the second application for renewal of permit is entertained and the same is renewed over ruling the objection filed by the petitioner. He would submit that said renewal is impermissible under law.

#4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 would submit that writ petition is not maintainable. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order renewing the permit that the petitioner has to approach the Competent Authority by filing a revision petition under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

#5. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar.

#6. It is very much apparent that the petitioner has got a remedy by way of a revision before the Authority under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:196 WP No. 56 of 2025

#7. It is to be noticed that the earlier challenge to the earlier renewal is not yet adjudicated. ORDER i) The writ petition is disposed of reserving the liberty to the petitioner to file the revision petition against the impugned order as contemplated under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. ii) In case the said petition is filed, the time spent in prosecuting this writ petition i.e. from 31.12.2024 until this date is to be excluded. iii) In case such petition is filed, the Authority shall consider the revision petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43