NARAYANA BHATTA S Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constiiution, the petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to issue a special permit without insisting upon the payment of grant-fee and also to declare that the word 'grant' occurring in Rule 120 (iv) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 (hereinafter be referred to as the 'Rules'), is null and void and to strike down the same. He has also sought for a further direction to the 3rd respondent to refund the excess amount collected on all the permits referred to in para-2 of the writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner is a Tourist Operator. He is operating his tourist vehicles under special permits under the provisions of Section 63 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter be referred to as the 'Act'). According to the case of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent is collecting Rs. 50/- for each application filed by the petitioner for grant of a special permit, and in addition to this, the 3rd respondent is also insisting that for ''ssuing each special permit, a sum of Rs. 50/- per vehicle be paid. The contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner admit of the following points for consideration :

(3.) Point No. (i) : The contention that the special permit does not fall within the definition of permit cannot at all be accepted. Permit is nothing but a document authorising the use of a transport vehicle in a particular manner. Section 2 (20) of the Act, defines the word 'permit' as follows :