MOHAMMED FAZALULLA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri B. R. S. Guptha and Sri B. E. Kotian, learned Government Advocate for respondents.

(2.) THE only point that has been raised in the writ petition in course of arguments relates to the validity of Rule 151, clause (2)of Rules 1989 namely Karnataka' Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 in motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner in this petition has claimed the following reliefs.

(3.) PETITIONER's case is that, having purchased the stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No. AP 09/u 4047 having the wheel-base of 205" and the seating capacity of 38 + 2, the petitioner moved an application on 24-11-1995 for inclusion of the said vehicle under permit No. 2/82-83 under Section 83 (1) of motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 79 (1) of the Karnataka motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Petitioner's case is that the petitioner had been the holder of a stage carriage permit bearing no. 2/82-83 which is valid upto 8-6-1997 and authorised to operate on the route Nagalapura Gate to Hiriyur and back. Petitioner's case is that instead of granting permission for replacement, the authority issued an endorsement bearing No. RTA. I. REPL. PR 60/95-96, dated 1-12-1995 and thereby insisted upon the compliance of Rule 151 (2) of the Karnataka Motor vehicles Rules, 1989 for the purpose of granting replacement of the vehicle in question. The petitioner has annexed that order as annexure-A. The Regional Transport Authority informed the applicant that he should comply with that requirement. Feeling aggrived from the order dated 1-12-1995, the petitioner has come before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for the reliefs claimed as above.