- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6147 WP No. 102218 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 102218 OF 2025 (MV-) BETWEEN: SHRI. NARAYAN S/O. RAMAKRISHNA KULKARNI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SHRI LAXMI NIVAS, 8TH CROSS, VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOT – 587102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, BAGALKOT, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT, TAL. & DIST. BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCPG) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, I. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENTS DATED 17/01/2025 AND 20/02/2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING NO.¸ÀA:¥Áæ¸ÁC/ ¨Á/£ÉÆà ¸ÀA:¥Áæ¸ÁC/ ¨Á/£ÉÆà ¸ÀA:¥Áæ¸ÁC/ ¨Á/£ÉÆà ¸ÀA:¥Áæ¸ÁC/ ¨Á/£ÉÆà /»A§gÀºÀ/ /»A§gÀºÀ/ /»A§gÀºÀ/ /»A§gÀºÀ/24-25 AND ¸ÀA:¥Áæ¸ÁC/¨Á/£ÉÆÃ/»A§gÀºÀ/ ¸ÀA:¥Áæ¸ÁC/¨Á/£ÉÆÃ/»A§gÀºÀ/ ¸ÀA:¥Áæ¸ÁC/¨Á/£ÉÆÃ/»A§gÀºÀ/ ¸ÀA:¥Áæ¸ÁC/¨Á/£ÉÆÃ/»A§gÀºÀ/ 24-25 RESPECTIVELY VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND A1 TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. II. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICES ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN FORM NO. “E-1” TO PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF 6 VEHICLES VIDE ANNEXURE-C, C1, C2, C3, C4 AND C5 TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6147 WP No. 102218 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the Endorsements dated 17.01.2025 and 20.02.2024 issued by respondent No.2-the Regional Transport Officer, Bagalkot, produced as per Annexures-A and A1 and also to quash the impugned demand notices, produced as per Annexures-C, C1, C2, C3, C4 and C5. 2. Heard Sri Shivaraj S. Balloli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, he owns several vehicles and has given a representation dated 15.04.2021, produced as per Annexure-B to respondent No.2 that, he is not using the vehicles mentioned therein due to COVID-19, and the vehicles are - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6147 WP No. 102218 of 2025 kept idle. Therefore the same are to be treated as ‘non- used’ vehicles. 4. Respondent No.2 issued the Endorsement as per Annexure-A dated 17.01.2025 and Annexure-A1 dated 20.02.2025, referring to the representation Annexure-B and bringing to the notice of the petitioner that; (i) he has not paid the required fee; (ii) he has not produced the original documents of the vehicles and that (iii) a notice demanding tax was issued on 07.11.2024. Therefore, it is informed that representation produced as per Annexure-B cannot be considered. However, it is made clear in the Endorsements/Annexures-A and A1 that, if the required fees is paid by producing original documents of the vehicles, he can seek necessary orders regarding non-user of the vehicle. It is highlighted that, such request could be made only after paying the tax required to be paid, failing which, the petitioner was informed that necessary procedure will be followed for recovery of the tax that is due in respect of those vehicles. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6147 WP No. 102218 of 2025 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner is also challenging the demand notice produced as per Annexures-C and C1 to C5 series issued by respondent No.2 calling upon the petitioner to pay the arrears of tax in respect of various vehicles referred to by the petitioner in his representation for the period from April or May or September-2016 as the case may be. These Annexures are issued during November, 2024. 6. It is pertinent to note that Annexure-D is the letter written by the petitioner to respondent No.2 dated 08.01.2025 referring to the demand notice by respondent No.2 to pay the arrears of tax and informing that, due to COVID-19, his vehicles have not been used, and the same was informed as per Annexure-B dated 15.04.2021. It is pertinent to note that till date, the petitioner had not paid the required fee to treat the vehicles as non-used vehicles, nor he has produced the original documents before respondent No.2. There is absolutely no reason assigned - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6147 WP No. 102218 of 2025 by the petitioner for not paying the required fees, or for not producing the records before respondent No.2. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has paid the road tax during April-2021 up-to June-2021. Learned High Court Government Pleader disputes this fact referring to Additional Document i.e., copies of the receipts produced by the petitioner to contend that even as per the receipts, the tax was paid only up to September or October or November 2018, and not thereafter. 8. It is pertinent to note that even though the learned counsel for the petitioner produced seven receipts to contend that he has paid the tax till April to June-2021. Admittedly, he has not produced the same before respondent No.2, nor there is reference to these receipts either in Annexure-B or in Annexure-D. I do not find any reasonable excuse for the petitioner for not producing these receipts and drawing attention of respondent No.2 to contend that the tax up to year 2021 is already paid. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6147 WP No. 102218 of 2025 9. When respondent No.2 has issued Annexures-A and A1 highlighting the “non-payment of renewal fees” and “non production of the original documents” and “non- payment of tax”, it was for the petitioner to approach respondent No.2 by complying with the requirements and or at-least giving reasonable explanation for not complying with the same. 10. Under such circumstances, I do not find any merits in the contention taken by the petitioner to quash either Annexures-A and A1 or even Annexures – C and C1 to C5. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE MKM,EM CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7