Dismissed

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

Bombay HC19 Jun 2014WP/2064/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench rejected a writ petition challenging the Maharashtra Government's online process for granting auto rickshaw permits. The court held the educational qualification and lottery method were rational, not arbitrary, and did not deprive eligible permit holders of renewal rights.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for issuing a direction to formulate a new policy and refund of fees was rejected.

Govind Alias Bhgi Ganesh Tilve Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2014)

wp-2064.14

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2064 OF 2014

¶6

Govind Alias Bhai Ganesh Tilve … Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and Another

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

Mr. Gouresh Mogre, for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP, for Respondents – State.

¶11

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 19^th JUNE, 2014

¶13

P.C.

¶14

. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and

¶15

the learned AGP for the Respondents. An advertisement was published by the Motor Vehicles Department of the Maharashtra Government inviting applications from eligible applicants who wished to apply for grant of auto rickshaw permits from various Regional Transport Authorities throughout the State. The applications were invited online. Particulars of the number of permits to be sanctioned within the limits of various Regional Transport Offices were also set out in the said advertisement. Minimum educational qualification was also provided for. The advertisement records that the applicant must have passed X

¶16

1 of 10

¶17

2 wp-2064.14

¶18

standard examination. It also provided that if enough applications of the candidates who have passed X standard examination are not received, applicants who are VIII standard pass would be considered. We must note here that total number of permits subject matter of advertisement were 69,309. The challenge in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the on-line process adopted by the respondents for grant of the said permits.

¶19

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the educational qualification fixed by the respondents has no rational basis. His submission is that it is made mandatory to apply on-line. Many eligible persons may not have applied on account of the lack of knowledge of operation of computers. He submitted that even mode of paying the processing fees through debit or credit card or internet banking or through Sangram is illegal. His submission is that considerable section of autorickshaw drivers do not have access to payments by such methods. He urged that experienced auto rickshaw drivers will be deprived of opportunity of obtaining permits though they are already holding permits. He urged that large number of eligible auto rickshaw drivers have been deprived of chance of applying for permits because of the online process adopted by the respondents and because of the educational qualification fixed by the respondent. He

¶20

2 of 10

¶21

3 wp-2064.14

¶22

urged that those persons who were already holding permits will be deprived of permits as all permits will be allotted by the on-line process. He urged that the entire process adopted by the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. Such a process keeps out large number of applicants who may not have applied at all. Lastly, he submitted that a direction may be issued to formulate a fresh policy for grant of permits which will be a rational policy. The learned AGP appearing for the respondents relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by Shri Purushottam D. Nikam, Deputy Transport Commissioner (Enf-1) and submitted that apart from the fact that the entire process has been completed, there is nothing arbitrary or irrational about the policy of the State.

¶23

We have given careful consideration to the submissions. We have perused the reply filed by Shri Purushottam D. Nikam. It will be necessary to make a reference to paragraph 5 of the said reply. Under sub-section (2) of section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the said Act”), holder of a permit is required to apply for its renewal fifteen days before the date of expiry of the term of the permit. Under sub-section (3) of the said Act, there is a power to extend the time. In paragraph 5, it is stated that by resolution dated 17^th December, 2002, the Regional Transport Authority, Mumbai resolved to accept the applications received late up to five years for renewal of permit. It is

¶24

3 of 10

¶25

4 wp-2064.14

¶26

stated that the State Transport Authority, Mumbai vide Resolution dated 7^th February, 2009 resolved to allow renewal of taxi/ auto rickshaw permits where delay is more than 2 years. Various decisions taken thereafter as regards applications made after expiry of permit and the time limit of renewal of permits have been set out in the affidavit. Lastly, it is stated that to maintain uniformity in the policy, the State Transport Authority in its meeting held on 29^th April, 2013 decided to issue directions to all Regional Transport Authorities not to renew the permits after six months from the date of its expiry. There is a specific statement made in paragraph 6 that after giving several opportunities, many auto rickshaw permit holders failed to obtain renewal of their permits as a result of which 81,456 auto rickshaw permits expired or lapsed or were cancelled. The Government of Maharashtra by a letter dated 1^st October, 2013 directed the Transport Commissioner, Mumbai to allot 50% of the expired, lapsed or cancelled permits in MMRTA region and in the remaining areas of the State subject to minimum 300 permits in the District.

¶27

Thus, the affidavit shows that as a result of online system adopted by the respondent for allotment of permits, those who are entitled in law to the renewal of their permits were not deprived of getting their permits renewed. Only those permits which were not renewed even within the extended time or those permits which had

¶28

4 of 10

¶29

5 wp-2064.14

¶30

otherwise lapsed or cancelled were the subject matter of advertisement published by the State Government.

¶31

In paragraph 10 of the affidavit, it is stated that the advertisement which is impugned in this Petition was for distribution of 50% of the available auto rickshaw permits by a lottery draw. It is stated that applicants who applied on-line till 15^th February, 2014 which was the last date were given time till 17^th February, 2014 to make payment of processing fees. The facility to file on-line application was made available throughout the State of Maharashtra and list of such facility centers in Grampanchayat and Citizen Service Centers was made available on the website. It is stated that the facility to file on-line application was available in more than 6000 e-Service Centers in rural area and 70 e-Service Centers in City of Mumbai. It is stated that till 17^th February, 2014, about 1,75,000 on-line applications were received and as many as 1,52,865 applicants paid processing fees. Out of 1,52,865 applicants, 1,30,653 candidates were found to be eligible. This factual statement clearly shows that there is no merit in the contention that large number of eligible persons were deprived of making on-line applications due to lack of knowledge of operation of computers and due to lack of access to internet. We must note here that no specific instances have been pointed out by the Petitioner of the

¶32

5 of 10

¶33

6 wp-2064.14

¶34

eligible persons who were deprived of making on-line applications. More than 1,50,000 applicants paid processing fee. Apart from the fact that assistance was made available by the State, there does not appear to be any substance in the contention that eligible applicants were prevented from making applications as they could not operate computer or could not make payment of fees. No such specific instances have been set out by the petitioner.

¶35

Paragraph Nos.13 and 14 record in what manner the draw was conducted. The lottery software prepared by MahaOnline was submitted to I.I.T., Mumbai for testing the same for true randomness. It is stated that the same was accordingly certified and tested by the I.I.T., Mumbai. Apart from the members of the Oversight Committee who were high ranking government officers, two representatives of taxi unions and one representative of public were called upon to remain present at the time of draw. The manner in which the draw was conducted is set out in paragraph 14.

¶36

In paragraph 15 of the affidavit, it is stated that the candidates who have been selected by lottery system will be issued permits after submission and scrutiny of documents and after confirming their eligibility as set out in the advertisement. It is stated

¶37

6 of 10

¶38

7 wp-2064.14

¶39

that after verification of documents, respective permit issuing authorities will grant permits to the selected candidates who are eligible. It is stated that if the candidates selected through lottery are found to be ineligible after verification of documents, then candidates in the waiting list will be considered serially. It is stated that the work of issuing letters of intent and permits has been already started.

¶40

The other issue canvassed by the Petitioner is as regards the eligibility criteria of education. This issue has been dealt with by this Court by Judgment and Order dated 20^th April, 2012 in Writ Petition No.2778 of 2012 ( Chandrakant Bapuso Otari vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ). Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said judgment read thus :-

¶41

The question is whether the criteria specified by the department that preference will be given to candidates who have passed 10th standard to be followed by candidates who have passed upto 8th standard and thereafter, the remaining candidates, can be said to be unreasonable and has any nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The permits are given to the candidates who possess batch to operate rickshaw and the valid driving licence. While issuing permits, police verification of the antecedents of the persons or their domicile upto 15 years, is inisted upon. The instructions now issued are in the nature of elimination process and giving

7 of 10

wp-2064.14

preference to better educated persons to have permit. How can such process be terms as unreasonable or having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

¶46

In so far as Kolhapur area is concerned, it is stated by the learned AGP that in all 596 permits are available for distribution. As against that, around 1000 applications have been received. Out of the said applications, the eligible candidates who have passed 10^th standard are only 212. As per the decision, eligible candidates having passed upto 10^th standard would get preference at first stage. Out of the remaining candidates, only 177 candidates have passed upto 8^th standard. They would also be allocated permits at the second stage of distribution of permits. The remaining permits which would be allocated amongst eligible candidates will be distributed after further guidelines are formulated. At present the distribution and allocation of rickshaw permits will be done only in respect of firt two stages between eligible candidates who have passed upto 10^th and 8^th standard.

¶47

(Underlines added)

¶48

The Division Bench proceeded to reject the Writ Petition.

¶49

We find nothing arbitrary or illegal in fixing minimum educational qualification of having passed VII standard examination. The auto rickshaw permit holders should have that minimum educational qualification. There is nothing illegal about the policy of giving preference to those who have passed X standard examination.

¶50

8 of 10

¶51

9 wp-2064.14

¶52

We must note here that in paragraph 12 of the affidavit, a statement has been made that out of total 48 offices in the State, in 26 offices, applications for grant of permits were received which were less than the permits allocated for that particular office. There is a chart annexed as Exhibit 3 to the reply which shows that out of the eligible candidates, 60,704 have been winners and 34,218 have been kept on the waiting list. Total permits available are 81,456 therefore, 20,752 permits are still balance.

¶53

After having perused the affidavit of Shri Purushottam D. Nikam, we find nothing arbitrary or irrational in the method adopted by the respondents for allotting the permits. The respondents have adopted a fair process of making on-line applications and selecting the candidates by a draw. As stated earlier, by this method, those who were holding permits and who have applied for renewal within prescribed time are not at all affected as only lapsed or cancelled permits were the subject matter of draw. As far as the issue of educational qualification is concerned, the same has been already decided by the aforesaid Judgment and Order dated 20^th April, 2012. Reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court at Nagupr Bench passed on 21^st September, 2010 in Writ Petition No.815 of 2010 is completely misplaced as the

¶54

9 of 10

¶55

10 wp-2064.14

¶56

Division Bench was dealing with the issue of legality of the method of lottery system in the matter of grant of permit for inter state stage carriage permit.

¶57

Hence, we are unable to find any fault with the method adopted by the Respondents. Therefore, prayer clause (b) for issuing a direction to formulate a new policy cannot be issued.

¶58

As far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, the prayer for refund of fees will will have to be made by individual applicants. Hence, the the said prayer cannot be considered in this Petition as the petitioner is not seeking any refund.

¶59

We must make it clear that if any individual eligible applicant has any particular grievance about the selection process, it is for him to adopt appropriate proceedings. Subject to what is observed above, the Petition is rejected.

¶60

10 of 10

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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.

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