- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48707 WP No. 35371 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.35371 OF 2025 (MV) BETWEEN: K. SUNIL KUMAR S/O M. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT SANTHEPET, HANUR TOWN, CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT-571313. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B.R. SUNDARA RAJA GUPTA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CHAMARAJNAGAR-571313. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI M. RAO, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31/10/2025 BEARING NO. NIL MARKED UNDER ANNEXURE-Q BY ISSUED OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48707 WP No. 35371 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent. 3. The undisputed facts reveal that the petitioner's transferor’s husband was holding stage carriage permit bearing No.6/1997-98, valid up to 22.05.2002, for the route between Chamarajanagar and M.M. Hills and back. Upon the death of the original permit holder on 11.03.2014, an application under Section 82(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act, 1988’ for short), read with Rule 79 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (‘Rules, 1989’ for short), was filed seeking transfer of the said permit along with renewal. 4. The authority accepted the request and renewed the permit from 22.05.2002 to 22.05.2027. While matter stood thus, the respondent by order dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48707 WP No. 35371 of 2025 31.10.2025 (Annexure-Q), cancelled both the renewal and the transfer. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order suffers from a fundamental procedural infirmity as it has been passed without issuance of any show cause notice or providing an opportunity of hearing, therefore violating the principles of natural justice. 6. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that an alternative remedy under Section 89 of the Act, 1988, is available to the petitioner and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable. 7. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the cancellation has been effected unilaterally without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Such omission constitutes a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48707 WP No. 35371 of 2025 8. Though this Court is conscious of the availability of an alternative remedy, the settled legal position is that in cases of violation of natural justice, the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction. The impugned order is unsustainable for this reason alone, especially when the permit continues to be valid until 2027. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed in part. ii. The impugned order dated 31.10.2025 (Annexure-Q) is hereby quashed. iii. The petitioner is at liberty to file objections before the respondent-authority within two weeks from the date of receipt of this certified copy of this order. iv. The respondent-authority shall consider the matter afresh, after affording the petitioner and any persons likely to be affected an opportunity of hearing, and shall pass appropriate orders in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48707 WP No. 35371 of 2025 accordance with law within two weeks thereafter. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18