ORDER 1. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bengaluru, has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus against the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, Chama rajanagara District, to consider the representation submitted by it. The said representation is produced at Annexure-B. 2. A perusal of the representation would show that KSRTC has sought permission of the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, Chamarajanagara, to grant permission to ply two buses on Bandipur National Highway No.212 between Gundlupet and Sulthan Batheri through the National Park during night time from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. 3. The case made out by the petitioner-Corporation is, that there had been restriction imposed by the District Magistrate for plying of vehicles both public and private between Gundlupet and Sulthan Batheri. However, taking note of public interest, exemption/relaxation has been granted in favour of KSRTC to ply couple of buses. But, in the light of the public demand and the need experienced by the petitioner, additional services from Bengaluru to Kozhikode and Bengaluru to Ernakulam has to be permitted to operate by relaxing the restriction, so that it will prevent the hardship that is otherwise faced by the public. As this representation given on 18.09.2014 has not been considered, petitioner-Corporation has sought for a direction to the District Magistrate to consider this representation. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate brings to the notice of the Court, a judgment of the Division Bench in W.P.Nos.26621629/2009 and connected cases in the case of P.K.Fravesh & Others Vs State of Karnataka & Others, to contend that this Court has expressed serious concern over the safety of wildlife in Bandipur forest area because of indiscriminate vehicular traffic during night hours both by public and private transports. He, therefore, justifies restriction imposed by the District Magistrate and submits that no case is made out for issue of writ mandamus as sought for by the petitioner. 5. I have perused the judgment rendered by the Division Bench. The matter involved therein pertained to National Highway Nos.212 and 67. So far as NH212 which cuts across Bandipur National Park from Gundlupet to Sulthan Batheri, continued night traffic around the year had serious effect on the behavioural biology like mating, breeding, nursing, parental care of the wild animals in the park, which would have a long term impact on the animal population and affect the life cycle of the animal species. The Division Bench has taken note of the alternative road available for the transporters to make use during night hours. Therefore, by examining the various implications and the fundamental duty cast on each citizen under 51A(g) of the Constitution and the mandate given under Article 48A of the Constitution, the Division Bench has come to the conclusion that restrictions imposed for banning vehicular traffic during night hours with a view to protect wild life, forest, ecology and environment, cannot be said to be violative of any fundamental right of any of the general public. On the other hand, the said step as held therein, would be in furtherance of the fundamental duty cast on the citizen under Article 51A(g) and the directive contained under Article 48A of the Directive Principles of State Policy. 6. In the light of the various observations in the body of the said order, the Division Bench issued several directions against the State to repair the alternative road, make it motorable and provide relief to the public to take the said road during night hours, in the interest of protecting wild life. 7. In such circumstances, in the light of the various observations made by the Division Bench and the directions issued therein, this Court will not issue a direction to the District Magistrate to consider the representation for relaxing the restriction imposed for vehicular traffic during night hours from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m.. If such a direction is issued, it will run counter to the tenor of the judgment and the directions issued by the Division Bench in the writ petition referred to supra. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.