The Court dismissed a PIL seeking writ relief against illegal plying of vehicles for sugarcane transport without road tax registration and for directing surprise checks, finding the petition lacked material particulars and evidence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 9
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 109 of 2021
Petitioner :- Arvind Bhardwaj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
(Per: Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J)
This petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"(i) Issue, an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to restrain the illegal plying of nontransport/commercial vehicles being used for commercial purposes in transportation of Sugarcanes from purchase centre to the Sugarcane Crashing Panel in District Bareilly, forthwith.
(ii) Issue, an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to perform their duties in accordance with law by conducting surprise checking of the vehicles being used for commercial purposes but registered for private/agriculture purposes and recover road tax in accordance with law, on regular basis".
Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that various Sugar Mills in the several areas of District, Bareilly have engaged farmers having tractor and trolley for transportation of sugarcane from the purchase centre to the Mills in order to evade payment of road tax. It is contended that without payment of road tax and registration charges of vehicle to Government Authorities, the vehicles are being plied in their jurisdiction under 'a collusive illegal act' on the part of the respondents.
A perusal of petition reveals that not only is it lacking in material particulars regarding specific instances and details of such vehicles, but none of the contentions are substantiated by cogent evidence.
When confronted, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in similar circumstances, a Division Bench of the Lucknow Bench of this Court in a petition being Misc. Bench No. 1491 of
2014 (Harshuk Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others) had, on 21.2.2014, directed the respondents to carry out periodical surveillance to ensure that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are duly implemented.
Be that as it may, this petition which is lacking in material particulars cannot be entertained by this Court on the basis of vague averments. Moreover, even assuming that the petitioner has a cause, it is open for him to seek compliance of the aforesaid order of Division Bench of this Court.
Under the circumstances, no interference is called for and this petition is, accordingly, dismissed .
No costs.
Order Date :- 22.2.2021 sfa/
(Jayant Banerji, J) (Sanjay Yadav, J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a PIL lacks material particulars and cogent evidence can be entertained by this Court.
Whether the petitioners could seek compliance of the prior order of Division Bench in Misc. Bench No. 1491 of 2014.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Harshuk Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and OthersReferred¶11
Misc. Bench No. 1491 of 2014 (Harshuk Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Arvind Bhardwaj
State Of U.P.
Sanjay Yadav
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
