K T RAJASHEKHAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 19-8 1980 the petitioner made an application under S. 63 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for grant of a special permit before the Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the RTO) for carrying passengers on hire or reward in his Motor Vehicle bearing No. MED 4503 from 22 8 1980 to 31-8 1980. On the said application made by the petitioner the RTO by his endorsement No. SPB/MED 4504/80-81 (Annexure B)apparently influenced by the form of the permit prescribed by the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) directed the petitioner to furnish the names and addresses of the passengers travelling in the vehicle as per Rule 111 (5) of the Rules as a condition precedent to consider that application.

(2.) On 9th September, 1980 the petitioner approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the aforesaid order made by the RTO and for striking down column No. 9 of form No.53 P. Co. S.P.A. appended to the Rules with an appropriate prayer for interim directions. On 11 9 1980 this Court while issuing rule nisi in the case, directed the RTO not to insist upon the list of passengers proposed to be carried in the vehicle. In compliance with the interim order made by this Court, the RTO has issued a special permit to the petitioner without insisting on the production of a list of passengers which has also expired. In this view, it is not necessary for this Court to examine the validity of the impugned endorsement issued by the RTO and pronounce on its validity. Hence, the relief sought by the petitioner against the impugned order is rejected as having become unnecessary.

(3.) Sri P. R. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged that column No. 9 of Form No. 53 appended to the Rules is not in conformity with S. 63 (6) of the Act and Rule 111 of the Rules as amended by Government and is, therefore, liable to be struck down. In support of his contention Sr! Ramesh strongly relies on the ruling rendered by Malimath, J. in B. A. Javaram v. State of Mysore (1) affirmed in W.A. No. 16311973 filed by the State.