Disposed

Shri. Bhaskar Govind Bhong and Ors. v. the Secretary, the State Transport Authority and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Jun 2014WP/1951/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single bench order addresses a writ petition regarding the grant of new auto rickshaw permits. While the challenge to a recent lottery notice was rejected in a separate order, the court directed the withdrawal of earlier rejections based on a non-notified government ban. The court ordered that specific applications be considered on merits within three months, while others on waiting lists fol

What did the court decide?

Orders rejections based on a non-notified ban withdrawn; specific applications considered on merits within three months; lottery winners issued permits if eligible; others per waiting list procedure.

Shri. Bhaskar Govind Bhong and Ors. Vs the Secretary… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp-1951.14

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1951 OF 2014

¶5

Shri Bhaskar Govind Bhong and others

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Secretary, The State Transport Authority and others

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

Mrs. Indrayani Mandar Koparkar, for the Petitioners. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4.

¶11

CORAM : A.S. OKA &

¶12

A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 19^th JUNE, 2014

¶14

P.C.

¶15

. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. As far as the challenge to advertisement dated 26th January, 2014 is concerned, the same has been rejected by a separate Judgment and Order delivered today in Writ Petition No.2064 of 2014.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners invited our attention to the orders passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai on 17th August, 2013 in separate Appeals preferred by Petitioner Nos.1 to 19. She pointed out that the applications made by the said 19 Petitioners for new auto rickshaw permits under sub-

¶17

1 of 7

¶18

2 wp-1951.14

¶19

section (1) of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the said Act”) were not accepted. By the separate orders of the Appellate Tribunal, the orders of non-acceptance of the applications were set aside and the Respondent (Regional Transport Office) was directed to accept the applications and to deal with the said applications in accordance with law within a period of three months. She also invited our attention to paragraph 9 of the Judgment and Order of the Appellate Tribunal. Inviting our attention to the communications issued to the first 19 petitioners on 22nd October, 2013, she submitted that relying upon a policy decision, the applications made by the said Petitioners were rejected without considering the same on merits. She pointed out that paragraph No. 9 of the Judgment of the Tribunal refers to Resolution No.24 of 2010 which imposes a ban on granting new permits and the Tribunal observed that the said notification has not been notified in the official gazette as contemplated under section 80 of the said Act. Her submission is that the applications ought to have been considered on merits and not on the basis of the alleged ban on issuing fresh permits.

¶20

The learned AGP has relied upon an affidavit-in-reply of Shri Purushottam D. Nikam, Deputy Transport Commissioner (Enf-1), Maharashtra State. She has submitted a chart duly signed by the Deputy

¶21

2 of 7

¶22

3 wp-1951.14

¶23

Regional Transport Officer, Kalyan. The chart shows that some of the Petitioners made online applications and participated in the draw held for grant of permits on the basis of notice dated 26th January, 2014 which is the subject matter of challenge in this Petition. It is pointed out that in the said draw the Petitioner Nos.3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 15 have been selected. It is pointed out that the Petitioner Nos. 6, 11 and 23 have been put on waiting list. On instructions, she stated that the orders of rejection of applications passed in relation to Petitioner Nos.1, 2, 5, 9, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19 will be withdrawn and applications made by the said Petitioners for grant of fresh permits shall be considered by the Appropriate Authority in terms of the Judgment and Order of the Appellate Authority. We accept the said statement. It is obvious that the applications made by the said Petitioners will have to be considered on merits and the same cannot be rejected on the ground of ban on the grant of permits.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, on instructions, states that the Petitioner Nos.6 and 11 who have succeeded in Appeals do not want the consideration of their applications on the basis of the orders in Appeals but they want their cases to be considered on the basis of their placement in the waiting list. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners has expressed an

¶25

3 of 7

¶26

4 wp-1951.14

¶27

apprehension that in case of those Petitioners who have been selected in the lottery, their applications may be rejected on technical grounds. The learned AGP appearing for the Respondents pointed out that those Petitioners who have been selected in draw are possessing minimum qualification of S.S.C and even Petitioner No.15 satisfies the criteria of the prescribed minimum qualification. She states that as stated in the affidavit-in-reply, after scrutinising the documents in relation to the qualification and after verification of the said documents, permits shall be issued to the concerned Petitioners. She states that in case of those Petitioners who are on the waiting list, their cases will be considered in accordance with the statements made in the affidavit-in-reply wherein it is stated that if adequate number of applicants possessing minimum qualification of S.S.C are not found, the Petitioners who are on wait list will be considered in the order of seniority.

¶28

As far as the Petitioner Nos.20 to 22 are concerned, they have not preferred any Appeals and, therefore, as far as the said Petitioners are concerned, the challenge is confined to the notice dated 26th January, 2014.

¶29

Hence, we pass the following order :-

4 of 7

wp-1951.14

ORDER

(i) The challenge to the notice dated 26th January, 2014 is rejected for the reasons set out separately in order passed today in Writ Petition No.2064 of 2014;

¶35

(ii) The learned AGP, on instructions of Shri Purushottam D. Nikam, the Deputy Transport Commissioner (Enf-1), Transport Commissioner Office, Bandra, Mumbai states that the communications/ orders dated 22nd October, 2013 issued to the Petitioner Nos.1, 2, 5, 9, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19 shall be withdrawn and their cases shall be considered on its own merit in accordance with the directions issued by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal vide Judgment and Order dated 17th August, 2013. We direct that the applications of the said Petitioners shall be considered on merits and shall not be rejected on the ground of the ban imposed on issuing fresh permits;

¶36

(iii) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the entitlement of the said Petitioners to grant of permits. The application shall be decided as

5 of 7

wp-1951.14

expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of three months from today;

¶41

(iv) We accept the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners on instructions that the Petitioner Nos.3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 15 are not interested in implementation of the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal in their Appeals. We accept the said statement. We direct that verification of the documents of the said Petitioners shall be made as expeditiously as possible and if they are found to be eligible, permits shall be issued to them in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible;

¶42

(v) We accept the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the Petitioner Nos.6 and 11 do not want to press for any relief on the basis of the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 17th August, 2013. The said Petitioners have been listed on the wait list and, therefore, their cases shall be considered in accordance with the statements made in the affidavit-inreply;

6 of 7

wp-1951.14

(vi) As far as Petitioner No.23 is concerned, as his name appears in the wait list, his case shall be considered as set out in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondents. As regards Petitioner Nos.20 to 22, no relief can be granted as we have upheld the validity of the process adopted on the basis of the advertisement dated 26th January, 2014;

¶47

(vii) The Petition is disposed of on above terms;

¶48

(viii)All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this

¶49

order.

¶50

(A. S. CHANDURKAR, J ) (A.S.OKA, J )

¶51

7 of 7

Shri. Bhaskar Govind Bhong and Ors. v. the Secretary, the State Transport Authority and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Bhaskar Govind Bhong and Ors. v. the Secretary, the State Transport Authority and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Appasaheb Akapa Khotale and Ors. Vs Shri. Prabhakar Kallu Khot and Ors.

Arya Agrotech Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State Bank of India, through Bank Branch Manager and Anr.

Sharad Narayan Ghante Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Tribunal Development Department and Ors.

Shri Basaweshwar Vividh Karyakari Co-Op. Society Ltd, through Chairman, Shri. Sadashiv R. Chougule Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Finance and Ors.

Shri. Sakharam Mahadev Jadhav Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Kulgaon-Badkapur Nagarparishad, Kulgaon and Ors.

Govind Alias Bhgi Ganesh Tilve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.