Dismissed

Kolhapur Zilla Bus Wahatuk and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Nov 2009WP/6416/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed a writ petition challenging a government circular enforcing permit conditions that banned private vehicle parking within 200 meters of bus stands. The court held the action was valid, in relation to permit conditions, and not ultra vires Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kolhapur Zilla Bus Wahatuk and Ors. Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

mgn

¶2

CONTINUATION SHEET No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.6416 OF 2009

¶4

Kolhapur Zilla Bus Wahatuk
Sangathana & Ors.

¶5

...Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors............Respondents

¶8

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office :
Memoranda of Coram, : Court's or Judge's orders
appearances,Court 's :
orders or directions & :
Registrar�s orders . :

¶9

Mr.S.R. Barlinga with Mr. A.J. Kandarkar,for the
Petitioners.

¶10

Mr. G.S. Hegde i/b. G.S. Hegde & Associates for respondent
No.4.
Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, A.G.P. For Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 5
and 6.

¶11

CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA,JJ.
DATED : 23rd November, 2009.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

By the present petition the petitioners are
challenging the communication dated 27th October, 2008
issued by the Desk Officer, Home Department, Maharashtra
Government, whereby all the Police Superintendents and
other Officers as set out therein have been asked to
enforce the order banning of private passenger vehicles
from parking or stopping in a radius of 200 mtrs. Of State

¶14

Transport Bus Standof Parel at Mumbai, Mumbai Central,
Borivali, Kurla and Pune. According to the learned Counsel
it is under only Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 that such a direction can be issued and for reasons
set out therein. The present direction not being under
Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act or traceable to it is
without jurisdiction and consequently the Circular of 27th
October, 2008 is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶15

2.The petitioners seek to espouse the cause of both the
bus owners and booking agents and some of them are acting
in dual capacity. In so far as buses are concerned they
all have contract carrier permit to which are amended the
following conditions:-

¶16

�The State Transport Authority decided to attach
additional conditions to the permit prohibiting
parking of all Public Service Vehicles other than
State Transport undertaking vehicles within a radius
of 200 meters from the place where the State Transport
undertaking vehicles operate for the purpose of

¶17

picking up and setting down the passengers
(Resolution No.25/96)�.

¶18

Thus it is clear that any holder of a contract carriage
permit who parks vehicles within 200 meters and/or for the

¶19

purpose of picking up and setting down the passengers
within 200 meters that would be in breach of the conditions
of the permit and liable for action including cancellation

¶20

of permit. In that context the direction issued on 27th

¶21

October, 2008 asking the Officers as set out therein to

¶22

take action cannot be faulted. This has nothing to do
with Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is always
open to a Licensing Authority to impose conditions while
granting a permit. If any party is aggrieved by that

¶23

condition the remedy is to prefer an appeal. As long as the
permit condition subsists the holder of the permit is bound

¶24

to comply with the said condition. The fact that the
holder of such a permit may have an office within 200

¶25

meters will not give him a right to park the vehicles
within that 200 meters or for that matter to pick up and/or
alight passengers within the 200 meters. We therefore,
find no fault with the action of the respondents in issuing
the circular dated 27th October, 2008.

¶26

3.The petitioners also made a grievance in the petition

¶27

that the respondents are seeking to prevent them from
running their booking office within the radius of 200
meters. Running of an office as a booking agent has
nothing to do with the conditions of the license which we

¶28

have referred to earlier and to that extent the respondents

¶29

cannot prevent a person from opening or running a booking
agent office as long as there is a license and the party
concerned confines to the terms and conditions of that
license. We have examined the English translation of the
Circular dated 27th October, 2008. Though there is a
reference that there are booking offices of the private
transport companies within 200 meters at Parel Bus Stand,
the Circular does not state that these booking offices
should be stopped. All that the Circular states is that
the vehicles cannot be stopped in the area of the radius of
200 meters of the bus stands as earlier set out.

¶30

4.With the above clarification, in our opinion, there is
otherwise no merit in this petition which is accordingly
disposed off.

Kolhapur Zilla Bus Wahatuk and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kolhapur Zilla Bus Wahatuk and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deena Pramod Baldota Vs the Addl. Collector and Competent Authority and Ors.

Narsu Tukaram Murdekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mahesh Bhattar and Ors. Vs the Chirman Bar Council of India

Dinesh Sukur More Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Zamir Abdul Sattar Shaikh Vs the Commissioner for Greater Bombay and Ors.

Dinesh Agarwal Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.