Dismissed

Mumbai Taximen Sangathan and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Mar 2012PIL/31/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a PIL challenging the constitution of the State Transport Authority and seeking directions for non-official members and public meeting agendas. The petitioners were absent. The court refused to entertain the petition but clarified that dismissal does not bar anyone from submitting proposals to the authorities.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mumbai Taximen Sangathan and Ors. Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2012)

SSK/

PILL 17.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

O.O.C.J.

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) NO. 17 OF 2012

¶7

Mumbai Taximen Sangathan & ors. ....Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr. S. K. Nair “A” Panel Counsel for respondent (State).

¶9

CORAM : MOHIT S SHAH, C.J. & RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 2^nd March, 2012.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

When the petition is called out, none of the petitioners is present, nor anyone appears on behalf of the petitioners.

¶12

In this petition, purporting to be a public interest litigation, the petitioners have challenged the resolutions passed by the State Transport Authority and Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Transport Authority (MMRTA). The petitioners have prayed for directions to the State Government to appoint experts/non-official members of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The appointment of the State Transport Authority is covered by the provisions of Section 68 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

¶13

Learned AGP has submitted that constitution of the State Transport Authority is as per the said provisions and there is no illegality in

¶14

SSK/

¶15

2 PILL 17.12

¶16

the appointment of the chairman/members of the said State Transport Authority.

¶17

The petitioners have, in the memo of the petition, made vague grievance against the agenda of the meetings of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and have submitted that when a common person or a trade union puts up their grievance/proposals, respondent Nos. 2 & 3 do not consider the same. The petitioners have also submitted that the agenda of the meetings of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the minutes of their meetings should be made public.

¶18

Having gone through the memorandum of the petition and having heard learned AGP, we are not inclined to entertain the petition and we dispose of the petition with clarification that the dismissal of this petition will not come in the way of any person submitting his or her proposals to respondent Nos. 2 & 3 on any matter which is relevant to the exercise of powers of respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

¶19

Subject to the above clarification, the petition is dismissed.

¶20

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶21

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

Mumbai Taximen Sangathan and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mumbai Taximen Sangathan and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Telang Road Residents Association and 12 Ors., Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

The Committee for Rights to Housing and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 10 Others

Moinuddin Khan Hazi Anwarul Haq Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Shri. Suresh Shamrao Powar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Urban Development Dept and Ors.

The Court on Its Own Motion Vs the Principal Secty. Urban Dev. Dept. and Ors.

Dinesh Mody Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gaon Bachav Sangharsh Samiti (Proposed) and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nilesh Sonal and Anr. Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation and 2 Ors.

Telang Road Residents Association and 12 Ors., Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

The Committee for Rights to Housing and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 10 Others

Kantibhai Jitmal Jain Vs Majaj Mukhtar Dolare and Ors.

Neena Sunil Patel and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pukhraj Chunilal Bafna Vs State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Dhiren Dungarshi Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and 10 Ors.