Karnataka High Court
Mr Ranjith K P vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 May, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:18555-DB
CCC No. 1217 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION No. 1217 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. MR. RANJITH K. P.,
S/O SHRI K. K. PEETHAMBARAN,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT No.004,
VISHAL PARK WOOD,
KESHAVARAJ LAYOUT,
CAMBRIDGE ROAD,
HALASURU, BENGALURU 560008.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI PRADEEP KUMAR J., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by VALLI AND:
MARIMUTHU
Location: High
Court of 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Karnataka
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
No.153, 1ST FLOOR,
MS BUILDING,
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560001,
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. MR. YOGESH A.M. I.A.S.,
THE COMMISSIONER,
TRANSPORT AND ROAD SAFETY,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:18555-DB
CCC No. 1217 of 2023
1ST FLOOR, A BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING,
SHANTINAGAR,
BENGALURU 560027.
3. MR. B.M. SURESH,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT
AND SENIOR REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
BANGALORE (SOUTH),
BUS STAND, 2ND FLOOR,
JAYANAGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX,
4TH T BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU 560011.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE
COMPLAINANT, PRAYING TO INITIATE PROSECUTION
AGAINST THE ACCUSED No.2 AND 3, FOR INTENTIONAL AND
WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 27.07.2023
(ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WA
No.191/2023 (MV) AND W.A.No.196/2023(MV).
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present contempt petition arises in view of non-
compliance of the judgment in Writ Appeal No.191 of 2023 and
allied appeal.
2. As pleaded and sought to be contended by the contempt
petitioner, the ground is that the Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways, Government of India, introduced Bharath Series referred
NC: 2024:KHC:18555-DB
to as "BH Series", as new registration mark for the vehicles, which
facility was made available to limited categories of defence
personnel, employees of Central Government, State Government,
Public Sector Undertakings, Private Sector companies, having their
offices in four or more States or Union Territories. The
Commissioner of Transport, Road Safety, Bengaluru, thereafter
issued a notification dated 20.12.2021, in lines of the aforesaid
notification to register the new non-transport vehicles of persons
excluding private sector employees.
3. The complainant-petitioner challenged the said notification
dated 20.12.2021 before learned Single Judge contending that
exclusion of the category of private sector employees was arbitrary
and that the said class of employees shall also be extended the
benefit of registration of BH series for their vehicles.
3.1 Learned Single Judge set aside the said notification dated
20.12.2021 insofar as it excluded private sector employees and in
writ appeal, the said order was confirmed. That is how the present
complainant has filed the contempt petition alleging that the
authorities are not permitting to register their vehicles in BH series.
NC: 2024:KHC:18555-DB
4. Learned Government Advocate Mr. S S Mahendra in course
of the consideration of the contempt petition pointed out that the
Special Leave Petition is already filed before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court against the order brought in this contempt petition. He
therefore submitted that the authorities may not be forced to act as
the Supreme Court is seized with the subject matter.
5. When the contempt petition comes up for consideration
today, there figures on the record an affidavit dated 27.05.2024
filed by the complainant-Ranjith K.P. son of Mr. K.K.Peethambaran,
who has inter alia stated on oath as under,
"I submit that as suggested by the Learned
Government Advocate during the hearing before this
Hon'ble Court on 27.05.2024, I am willing to register
my vehicle Toyota Fortuner, Sigma IV (AT) bought
from M/s Ravindu Toyata in Karnataka State
Registration i.e. KA Series, subject to the outcome of
the Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in SLP No.675/2024 filed by the
Respondents herein. I submit that I am willing to pay
the full Life Time Road Tax for the vehicle subject to
the Respondents refunding the difference amount in
the event of me succeeding the above Special Leave
Petition."
5.1 In view of the above statements made on oath, whereby the
complainant-petitioner would be getting the vehicle registered in
normal KA series and would pay the full life time road tax in respect
NC: 2024:KHC:18555-DB
of the vehicle, this contempt petition does not brook any further
consideration.
5.2 The complainant shall act as per the affidavit and the
averments made therein to get his vehicle registered and pay road
tax subject to the outcome of the Special Leave Petition pending
before the Supreme Court.
6. Further, on the basis of what is stated in paragraph 3 of the
affidavit, learned advocate for the complainant submitted that the
respondents have levied penalty of Rs.2,29,751/- on the ground
that the vehicle was not registered even after the expiry of the
period of temporary registration. It was submitted that the said
penalty is unjustified and may not be permitted to be levied. While
the said aspect traverse beyond the scope of the contempt
jurisdiction, nevertheless, the Court is inclined to consider the same
to a limited extent in the context of exercise of contempt jurisdiction
only and in conjunction of the order passed above
6.1 There is no gainsaying that the complainant had the benefit
of the decision of learned Single Judge and Division Bench. In that
view, it could be said that the complainant was justified in waiting
NC: 2024:KHC:18555-DB
for the compliance of the directions by the authorities. However,
the said aspects culminated now as per above order based on
complainant's affidavit.
7. In the totality of the view above, it is provided that the vehicle
of the complainant shall be registered without insisting for payment
of the penalty.
8. It goes without saying that all the above providences will
remain subject to the result of the Special Leave Petition, including
the liability to pay the penalty.
9. In the event outcome of the Special Leave Petition is in
favour of the complainant, the authorities shall refund the excess
amount.
10. The contempt petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MV
