- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14364 WP No. 7041 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7041 OF 2025 (MV) BETWEEN: SRI VIKAS GOWDA S/O VENKATESH GOWDA AYED ABOUT - 45 YEARS RESIDENT OF DHAREKOPPA VILLAGE, SRINGERI TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577139. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. YADUNANDAN N.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT FIELD ROAD, VIJAY NAGAR, CHIKKAMAGALUR, KARNATAKA 577101. 2. TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, SRINGERI, KARNATAKA - 577 139. 3. SRINGERI TOWN PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF OFFICER IDSMT SHOP, OPP. KEB, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14364 WP No. 7041 of 2025 BHARATI STREET SRINGERI KARNATAKA - 577 139. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAJKUMAR., AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.08.2024 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO. J1/M.A. G/CR-55/2024/25 AS PER ANNEXURE-D; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-E SERIES; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 TO EXTEND PERIOD OF WORK ORDER DATED 22.02.2024 FROM 31.03.2025 TO 31.07.2025; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO RETURN THE DEPOSITED/COLLECTED FEE WITH AN INTEREST OF 18 PERCENT P.A. FOR A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS PRO RATA. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition calling in question the first respondent's order dated 02.08.2024 [Annexure-D] while seeking directions to the first respondent as also the other respondents to consider his different representations. The first respondent, by the impugned order dated 02.08.2024, has prohibited parking of vehicles in the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14364 WP No. 7041 of 2025 area in Gandhi Maidan, Sringeri [the Subject Area] in exercise of the powers under Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, 'the MV Act'] because of the weather forecast to ensure safety. The petitioner's case is that this prohibition has continued over the last six months denying the petitioner the contractual period of one year to collect parking fee despite the fact that the petitioner has offered a sum of Rs.78,86,260/- as the highest bid. 2. The undisputed facts are (i) that the Local Panchayat [Sringeri Town Panchayat - the third respondent] has issued Notification dated 30.01.2024 inviting bids to collect parking charges in different places, including the Subject Area, (ii) that the petitioner has offered the highest bid in bidding Rs.78,86,260/-, and (iii) that the petitioner, in terms of this Notification, would be entitled to collect parking charges in different places, including the Subject Area until 31.03.2025. The petitioner asserts - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14364 WP No. 7041 of 2025 that the impugned order dated 02.08.2024 reads that this prohibition against parking would continue to be in force until further orders and further orders have not been issued. This Court, considering this ground, has granted interim order directing the respondents not to call for fresh tender. 3. It remains undisputed that, consequent to this interim order, the petitioner continues to collect parking charges in terms of the Work Order issued to him. If Sri. Yadunandan N., the learned counsel for the petitioner, argues to support the petitioner's request relying upon the afore circumstances, Sri. Rajkumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that the first respondent has not issued a separate order revoking the impugned order dated 02.08.2024 because of the provisions of Section 115 of the MV Act. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate invites this Court's attention to proviso to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14364 WP No. 7041 of 2025 Section 115 of the MV Act and submits that if the restriction against parking or use of vehicles is to be for more than one month, the order must be notified in the Official Gazette, but if the direction is intended to restrict the parking for any period lesser than a month, such notification will not issued, and in the present case, the first respondent's impugned order dated 02.08.2024 is not intended to be beyond a month and hence, a separate revocation order is not issued. 5. The provisions of Section 115 of the MV Act reads as under: "115. Power to restrict the use of vehicles.—The State Government or any authority authorized in this behalf by the State Government, if satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public safety or convenience, or because of the nature of any road or bridge, may by notification in the Official Gazette, prohibit or restrict, subject to such exceptions and conditions as may be specified in the notification, the driving of motor vehicles or of any specified class or - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14364 WP No. 7041 of 2025 description of motor vehicles or the use of trailers either generally in a specified area or on a specified road and when any such prohibition or restriction is imposed, shall cause appropriate traffic signs to be placed or erected under section 116 at suitable places: Provided that where any prohibition or restriction under this section is to remain in force for not more than one month, notification thereof in the Official Gazette shall not be necessary, but such local publicity as the circumstances may permit, shall be given of such prohibition or restriction." 6. It is not in dispute that the impugned order dated 02.08.2024 is not notified in the Official Gazette. This Court must next observe that if it is not contested [as is not contested in this petition] that the prohibition under Section 115 of the MV Act will be in force only for a month unless notified in the Official Gazette, and that a separate order revoking the prohibition will not be required if it is intended to be in force only for a month, this would be so even if the order, for any reason reads, that it shall be in force - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14364 WP No. 7041 of 2025 until further orders. This Court must refer to the settled law that an order in excess of the statutory power cannot traverse beyond the expanse that is provided under the statute. 7. At this stage, Sri. Yadunandan N. submits that the difficulty for the petitioner is that boards have been put up by the respondents, and therefore, visitors are not encouraged to park in these areas resulting in a substantial financial loss to the petitioner. In response, Sri. Rajkumar submits that Gadhi Maidan belongs to the State Government and notwithstanding the same, the third respondent has issued tender notification and that it would not be permissible for another tender permitting parking in such area. 8. These submissions are also considered, and if it could be factually found out that the petitioner is put to financial loss with no parking in the subject area because of the boards put up consequent to the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14364 WP No. 7041 of 2025 order dated 02.08.2024, the first respondent independent of the controversy whether the third respondent could have issued tender notification, including such area, must determine the same and also consider whether the petitioner must be granted time till 31.05.2025. 9. This exercise will be necessary because if indeed the petitioner can demonstrate that parking in the Subject Area was not possible for any period after the rainy season, he must be entitled to appropriate consideration. It would be needless to observe that the first respondent must consider the circumstances relied upon by the petitioner and pass just orders supported by reasons. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [A] The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14364 WP No. 7041 of 2025 representation with the first respondent for continuation of his right to collect parking charges in the Subject Area until 31.05.2025 directing the first respondent to consider such representation in the light of this Court's observation. [B] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file such representation within a week from today without waiting for a certified copy of this order. It is clarified that the petitioner shall not be restricted from collecting parking charges in the Subject Area until there is due consideration. Sd/ (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB/SA