Disposed

Pravin Vijayshankar Upadhyay v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Aug 2016PIL/152/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL regarding a proposed strike by auto-rickshaw and taxi drivers on 29th August 2016, the Court directed the State of Maharashtra to make sufficient arrangements to tackle the situation and ensure that normal life does not come to a standstill.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent-State to make sufficient arrangements to tackle the situation regarding the proposed strike so that normal life does not come to a standstill.

Pravin Vijayshankar Upadhyay Vs State of Maharashtra — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

skn 1/2 23540.16-pilst.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (ST.) NO. 23540 OF 2016

¶4

Pravin Vijayshankar Upadhyay. V/s.	...	Petitioner.
State of Maharashtra.	...	Respondent.

¶5

Petitioner in person.

¶6

Vishal Thadani, AGP for the State.

¶7

CORAM : DR.MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. AND M.S.SONAK, J. DATE : 25^th August 2016.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

The petitioner in the nature of pro bono publico is before this Court complaining inaction on the part of the State Authorities to take any step to avoid the proposed strike to be held on 29^th August 2016 by the drivers of auto-rickshaws and taxis. According to him, there is no straight jacket formula in the Motor Vehicles Act like section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act to arrive at any compensation, if any untoward incident occurs on account of proposed strike to be held on 29^th August 2016. According to the petitioner, apart from not plying and auto-rickshaws and taxis there

¶10

skn 2/2 23540.16-pilst.sxw would be serious resistance even for other vehicles like Ola, Uber and other private transport vehicles to ply on the roads. This would make the life of the common man miserable and the entire city would be in trouble. Therefore, the respondent authorities ought to have negotiated with the unions who represent the drivers of auto-rickshaws and taxis so as to avoid holding strike on 29^th August 2016.

¶11

There cannot be any doubt that when the unions of this nature or other persons call for a strike they have to take permission from several authorities including the Police since normally the traffic would be affected. Since there is open declaration so far as the strike in question, we are of the opinion that by this time the State Administration must have made all the arrangements to meet the situation. It is needless to say that normal life of common man should not be disturbed on account of these Bundhs and strikes etc. We direct the respondent- State to make sufficient arrangements to tackle the situation so that the normal life does not come to stand still on the date of strike. With these observations, the petition is disposed of.

¶12

(M.S.SONAK, J.)

¶13

CHIEF JUSTICE

Pravin Vijayshankar Upadhyay v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravin Vijayshankar Upadhyay v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mera Haq Mera Adhikar(Ngo) Vs Mhada-Executive Engineer (Goregaon) and 2 Ors.

Mangal Vijay Raut Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Rajendra Purushottam Phanse and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary, General Admn. Dept. and Ors.

Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, by Shri. Shivaji Girijappa Vatkar Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Culture and Ors.

Dr. Noorjehan Safia Niaz and 1 Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors..

Nitesh Mohanlal Doshi Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Other

Manubhai Paragji Vashi Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and 5 Ors.

Mr. Prakash Chimanlal Sheth Vs the Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs (Mha) and Ors.

Mangal Vijay Raut Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy . Vs Rashid Sattar Oomerbhoy and 160 Ors.

Sabai Mura Rabari Wd/O.Mura Sura Rabari. Vs Paras Devraj Gundecha and 15 Ors.

Majlis Manch through Director, Adv. Flavia Agnes Vs Registrar, Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai and Ors.

Printek Graphix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India, Thru the Secy. Dept. of Financial Services and Anr.

Rakmabai Pandurang Sonavane Vs Pandurang Ramkrishna Sonavane and Anr.