- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10845 WP No. 7166 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7166 OF 2025 (MV) BETWEEN: SRI SHIVANAND GANIGA S/O SRIDHARA GANIGA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SVMS MOTORS, KASTURI NIVASA, NH 66 POST, UPPANDA, KUNDAPURA TALUK- 576232. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A S PARASARA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY RAJATHADRI SARIGE BHAVAN, MANIPAL, UDUPI - 576 102. 2. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY RAJATHADRI SARIGE BHAVAN, MANIPAL, UDUPI - 576 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAJ KUMAR., AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER / ENDORSEMENT PASSED BY THE R-2 IN NO.PRA.SA.PRA.U/B1/ENDORSEMENT/24-25 DATED 28.11.2024 IN REFUSING TO CONSIDER THE Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10845 WP No. 7166 of 2025 APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT OF VEHICLE NO. KA- 20/C-5044 IN THE PERMIT NO. 03/UDP/12-13 VALID UP TO 03.06.2022 VIDE ANNX-F; DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT OF VEHICLES NOS. KA-20/C-5044 IN THE PERMIT NO. 03/UDP/12-13 AND TO RENEW THE PERMIT FROM 04.06.2022 TO 03.06.2027 WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE RECEIPT OF THE ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the second respondent's Endorsement dated 28.11.2024 [Annexure-F] and he has also sought for direction to the second respondent to consider his application for replacement of the vehicle and renewal of the permit. The second respondent, by the impugned Endorsement dated 28.11.2024, has rejected the petitioner's application for replacement of the vehicle and renewal of permit in No.03/UDP/12-13 on the ground that the request for replacement cannot be considered when an application for renewal is pending consideration. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10845 WP No. 7166 of 2025 2. Sri Raj Kumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, is heard in the light of the following primary submissions by Sri.A.S.Parasara Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. [a] A Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.3620/2012 [MV], which is decided on 18.03.2013, has held that if the applications for both the renewal of permit and replacement of vehicle are pending consideration, the application for renewal must be considered and if it is found that there must be renewal, the application for replacement must be considered. [b] A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.57954/2016 [MV] when there was failure to replace the vehicle in time has - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10845 WP No. 7166 of 2025 granted an opportunity subject to the petitioner paying the penalty. Sri Raj Kumar submits that the petitioner cannot seek for a direction to the respondents to replace the vehicle unless the permit is renewed and the request for renewal of permit must be considered in the light of the documents that have to be submitted under Rule 79 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. 3. It emerges from these submissions that the petitioner's application for renewal is pending consideration and when such application is pending, the petitioner is issued with the impugned Endorsement. This Court cannot take any exception with the decision not to permit replacement when the question of renewal is yet to be decided. If the petitioner succeeds in his application for renewal, question of replacement of the vehicle on terms must be considered by the second respondent, the authority who should also consider the application - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10845 WP No. 7166 of 2025 for renewal. Significantly, the petitioner must produce every documents as would be required under the relevant Rules for renewal of permit. 4. The petitioner's application for renewal of permit is pending consideration despite the orders of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal in AP No.129/2024. This appeal is disposed of on 02.09.2024 with liberty to produce relevant documents within 30 days. In the circumstances, this Court is persuaded to opine that the petition must be disposed of calling upon the second respondent to decide on merits of the petitioner's application for renewal of the permit first within a time frame and then to consider the request for restoration of the application but on terms as stipulated in the orders of this Court in W.P.No.57954/2016 [MV]. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [a] The petition stands disposed of. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10845 WP No. 7166 of 2025 [b] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to produce all the documents as is required in terms of the Tribunal's order dated 02.09.2024 within a period of four [4] weeks from today without waiting for a certified copy of this order. [c] If the petitioner files such documents in terms of the liberty now reserved with the respondents, the request for renewal shall be considered within the next 60 days and then, if warranted, consider the petitioner’s application for replacement of the vehicle notwithstanding the Endorsement dated 28.11.2024 [Annexure-F] Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr