- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13213 WP No. 7089 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7089 OF 2023 (MV) BETWEEN: SRI P N NARSIMHA MURTHY S/O LATE PALAVALLI ADHISHESHAIAH, AGED 74 YEARS, R/A SRI VATHSANKITHA NILAYA, SRI VIJAYALAKSHMI MOTORS, PRASHANTH NAGAR, BEHIND CHANDANAHALLI ROAD, DEVARAYAPATNA NEW EXTENSION, TUMKUR 572104 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LOKESH R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY TUMKUR REGION, RTO OFFICE, B H ROAD, TUMKUR 572101 BY ITS SECRETARY 2. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL OFFICES, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13213 WP No. 7089 of 2023 K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU 560057 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DTD 28.02.2023 PASSED IN A 51/2022 MARKED ANNX-C TO THE WP AND APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE ORIGINAL AUTHORITY R-1 BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT; TO PASS ORDER TO DIRECT THE R-1 AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE NOTIFICATION DTD 28.09.2017 IN RESPECT OF SCHEME APPROVED MODIFICATION PUBLISHED AS PER SECTION 102 OF THE MV ACT, 1988. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDERS WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who held the permit in No.96/99-2000 to operate between Tumkur and Gowribidanuru [to and fro] and which was valid up to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13213 WP No. 7089 of 2023 27.09.2004, is aggrieved by the decision of the State Transport Authority on 08.04.2022 rejecting the application for renewal of the permit filed after a period of more than 18 years and the rejection of the Appeal in No.51/2022 by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru by the impugned order dated 28.02.2022 [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The Transport Authority's order dated 08.04.2022 is produced as Annexure-A, and the Tribunal's order dated 28.02.2022 in the aforesaid appeal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 [for short, 'the MV Act'] is produced as Annexure-C. 2. The petitioner has applied for renewal, as is seen from the order dated 08.04.2022, contending that he could not apply for renewal immediately after the expiry of the permit in the year 2004 or before the date of the present application because of a dispute between the family members - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13213 WP No. 7089 of 2023 and the financial constraints. The Transport Authority, not being persuaded by these reasons and because the permit can be cancelled or suspended under Section 86 of the MV Act if the holder of permit ceases to own the vehicle covered by the permit, has rejected the application. The Tribunal, while examining the merits of the Transport Authority's decision at the instance of the petitioner in the aforesaid appeal, has opined that the request for renewal cannot be granted because the failure to operate the service from the year 2004 renders the permit a Dead Permit. 3. Sri. R. Lokesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Transport Authority could not have rejected the application without examining whether the petitioner's permit would be saved in view of the Notification issued in the year 2017 as all permits granted and operating as on 14.01.2002 are exempted and permitted to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13213 WP No. 7089 of 2023 operate their vehicles on inter-district routes as well notwithstanding the scheme notified. The learned counsel submits that it cannot be disputed that the petitioner was operating the permit which was valid up to 27.09.2004 as of 14.01.2002. The learned counsel endeavors to persuade this Court to hold that the petitioner's application cannot be rejected unless the question of the petitioner's permit being saved in terms of the Notification dated 28.09.2017 is also considered. 4. Sri. Hareesh Bhandary T., the learned counsel for the second respondent, who is supported by Sri. Rajkumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the first respondent, submits that this Court cannot take exception with the Tribunal's finding that the petitioner's permit was a Dead Permit because the petitioner does not dispute that he has not applied for renewal any time in 2004 or until the present application. They contend that - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13213 WP No. 7089 of 2023 the present effort in seeking renewal of the Dead Permit is only because of the Notification dated 28.09.2017, and they emphasize that if the petitioner has not operated the permit for over a period of almost 1 ½ decades, no public interest, as observed by the Transport Authority, would be served in granting renewal of the permit. 5. These rival submissions are considered. This Court is of the definite opinion that the threshold requirement for the petitioner to seek a renewal of the permit, after lapse of a period of over 1 ½ decades, is to satisfy the Authorities the reasons for not seeking renewal. If the petitioner does not cross this threshold placing on record the material that justify a reasonable inference, he will have to fail and no exception can be taken with the Authorities opining that the renewal would not be in public interest and the renewal would be giving life to a Dead Permit. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13213 WP No. 7089 of 2023 In the light of the afore, the petition stands rejected. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB