ITT THE HIGH COTTRT O KARNAPA!A aT I(’HE DATED TPI THE 3R7) Th.Y OF APRIL 18 BEFORE THE HO’BTiE MR.JUSTICE B..SANGALD WRIT TETITIO!’ ‘TO.11400/1998 BETWEE T The Principal, Mabarel’i Vidye. Mandira, T irivannae1ai, Tamilnadu rep by Raghothaman, PT’PTOR (By Sri BRS Gupta, Advocate ) A ND 1. The 0 ormr for Transports, IV Floor, M.S.Bldgs, Ambedkar Veedhi, B’lore—l 2. The RTA, Mysore. RSPOTE’S (By Sri Prabhakar, HCGP ‘ This petition ailed under arts 22E sM of the Constitution of India prayinp to quah the order of R.2 vide Ann,C dt, 18—3—198, This petition corning on for prelimina hearing this da the Court made the following: ) —2— ORDER Heard Mr.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. lie contention is that nnexure-C should not have been written by the RTO. 2. Heard Mr.Prabhakar, learned HCGP. 3. In view of the submission of Mr.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Annexure-C is perused. The MG appears to have sought clarification from the Transport Commissioner. According to Mr.Gtpta the RTO has no power to question the authority of the Prnasport Cotnmissioner, There is no hesitation to accept this submission. But, by any stretch of imagination, AnnexureC does not give any indication that R’fO is intending to violate the conditions, At the best it can only be stated that he iin to seek better and prover advi€e to act under the oirctstances of the caFe, Hence this writ petition is preinatured. s such this wrtt pet ition is not maintaiable. Diissed. r’ *.