ORDER N. Kumar, J. - The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue a transit pass to the petitioner's goods whenever the sale is not within Karnataka. The petitioner is running a business in the name and style of M/s. Bhuvaneshwar Traders having its business concern at No. 2, Dr. Sankaran Salai, Namakkal. He is a trader for the waste engine oil to be carried from various places all over India. The petitioner is also entrusted to carry goods by traders in Tamil Nadu to various places. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that on December 16, 2007, the petitioner loaded a consignment from Namakkal to be delivered at Kolhapur in Maharashtra. A bill was prepared by way of JJ form No. 136 dated December 16, 2007 and JJ No. 137 dated December 16, 2007, and the vehicle left Namakkal. When it reached Attibele check-post in Karnataka, the driver tendered all the documents for verification to the third respondent. After thorough verification, the officer concerned had issued an endorsement bearing No. 548400 dated December 17, 2007 finding some discrepancies in "the serial number" and JJ form as the invoices were entered in handwritten form including the invoice enclosed with the JJ form 137. The third respondent suspected the form and demanded confirmation from the consignors and consignees. The driver immediately contacted his manager who in turn arranged for confirmation. Still, the respondents imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000 which was paid and the vehicle was released. The said consignment was delivered to the consignee at Kolhapur. Again, the petitioner's vehicle was stopped at the check-post at Attibele on December 25, 2007 and the driver of the vehicle tendered the documents. A notice was issued pointing out the discrepancies as per annexure F. Again the confirmation was demanded. The confirmation was given. As per annexure G, the release order was passed. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this court complaining that unnecessarily the respondents are harassing the petitioner. They are not issuing transit pass and therefore, he has sought for a writ of mandamus directing them to issue a transit pass. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. As per annexure G, the release order was passed. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this court complaining that unnecessarily the respondents are harassing the petitioner. They are not issuing transit pass and therefore, he has sought for a writ of mandamus directing them to issue a transit pass. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. Section 54 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") provides for issue of transit pass while goods are transported by road from one State to another State. Rule 161 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, provides the mode in which the said transit pass has to be obtained which reads as under : "Rule 161(1) The driver or the person-in-charge of a goods vehicle shall, in order to obtain a pass under section 54, submit an application, in triplicate, in form VAT-530 to the officer-in-charge of the check-post or barrier established near the point of entry into the State or the first check-post or barrier after his entry into the State (hereinafter referred to as the entry check-post) or to any other officer empowered in this behalf. (2) The officer-in-charge of the entry check-post or such officer empowered shall, after examining the document and after making such enquiry as he deems necessary, issue a pass on the duplicate and triplicate copies of the application, retaining the original himself." In the entire petition, petitioner has not stated that he made an application in the prescribed form requesting for issue of transit pass and the respondents have refused to issue the transit pass. His case is the driver requested for issue of pass. Mere oral request for pass will not entitle the driver to a transit pass. It is only when an application is made in the prescribed form and after complying with the legal requirements, the authorities can issue transit pass. When admittedly, the petitioner made no written application in the prescribed form for issue of transit pass, the authorities are under no obligation to issue such pass. That being the case, when the petitioner has not complied with the legal requirements, there is no corresponding obligation on the part of the authorities to comply with the said statutory provision. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. Hence, the petition is dismissed.