- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16197 WP No. 16423 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 16423 OF 2024 (MV) BETWEEN: M/s KHANIJA RECYCLING INDIA PVT LTD (COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.536 3RD FLOOR,14TH CROSS 27TH MAIN, J P NAGAR 1ST PHASE BENGALURU - 560 078. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER JAVEED AKHTER BAIGANPALLI (MANGER) …PETITIONER (BY SRI VISHRUTH C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER 1ST MAIN ROAD, AGARA VILLAGE HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR - I BENGALURU - 560 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAJKUMAR, AGA) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16197 WP No. 16423 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT BE PASSED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT No.2 TO UNFLAG THE STATUS OF BLACKLIST OF ON THE MOTOR VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION No.KAO1MJ9339 AS MENTIONED IN THE ANNEXURE A AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner has purchased a car [Audi A6] bearing registration number KA-01-MJ-9339 from the erstwhile owner, M/s. Jubilant Motor Works Pvt. Ltd., in August 2016. M/s. Jubilant Motor Works Pvt. Ltd. itself has purchased the vehicle from the original purchaser. The petitioner has applied with the second respondent for NOC along with the original Registration Card. The Department on its Vahan Portal has flagged the vehicle prohibiting the transfer, and the petitioner has sought for directions to the second respondent to remove the blocking. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16197 WP No. 16423 of 2024 2. Mr. Vishruth C., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner’s vehicle is blocked because of an alleged lifetime tax dues, and he underscores that the second respondent could not have blocked the vehicle once it had issued NOC for transfer of this vehicle from M/s Jubilant Motor Works Pvt. Ltd. as one of the essential conditions for issuance of NOC is that all dues must be cleared. 3. Mr. Rajkumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, relying upon Annexure R2 - a Demand Notice dated 04.06.2022 issued under the provisions of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1957 and the different notifications referred to, canvases that a demand has been raised on the petitioner for a sum of Rs.20,24,937/- and that though the petitioner is served with such demand, it has neither complied nor called such demand in question. In reply, Mr. Vishruth C. submits that the petitioner has come to know about the impugned - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16197 WP No. 16423 of 2024 demand only when the respondent has filed the Statement of Objections in the present proceedings. 4. This Court can resolve the dispute on due service of the demand dated 04.06.2022, but it remains undisputable that the petitioner has not responded and that the impugned demand is without due opportunity to the petitioner. In the light of the canvas that is urged, which must be considered by the second respondent with due opportunity to the petitioner, this Court, in the interest of justice, is inclined to dispose of the petition observing that demand dated 04.06.2022 shall be read as a show cause notice with opportunity to the petitioner, and that in exercise of this opportunity to show cause, the petitioner must be at liberty to file objections. Consequentially, the second respondent must be directed to consider the same and pass just orders in law. Hence the following - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16197 WP No. 16423 of 2024 O R D E R [A] The petition stands disposed of reading down the Demand Notice dated 04.06.2022 as Show Cause Notice with liberty to the petitioner to file a response in writing with the second respondent within 15 days from today. [B] The second respondent shall consider such response and decide within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of the objections. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23