Disposed

Ganesh Ramesh Nimbalkar v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jun 2022PIL/73/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner in this PIL sought directions against automobile dealers for appointing sub-dealers violating Rule 42 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The Court noted notices and suspensions issued by the Transport Office and directed respondents to complete proceedings against offenders and prevent unauthorized business.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to take logical conclusion of proceedings against offenders and prohibit sub-dealers from carrying on business without proper license.

Ganesh Ramesh Nimbalkar Vs Union of India and… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

ppn 1 19. pil-73.21.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Digitally signed PRACHI by PRACHIPRANESH PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR NANDIWADEKAR Date: 2022.06.14 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.73 OF 2021 16:27:53 +0530

¶4

Ganesh Ramesh Nimbalkar .. Petitioner Versus The Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents

¶5

Mr.Vaibhav Kadam a/w Ms.Kanchan Zire and Ms.Aprajita Mahto for the petitioner.

¶6

Anjani Kumar Singh for the respondent no.1 UOI. Mr.P.P. Kakade, GP a/w Mr.M.M. Pabale, AGP for the respondent nos.2 to 8.

¶7

P.C.:-

¶8

. By this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner seeks an order and direction against the respondent no.4 to direct the respondent nos.6 to 8 to produce the list of the dealers who have appointed the sub-dealers and unauthorized dealers in violation of Rule 42 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.

¶9

We have perused the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent nos.6 and 7 which indicates that pursuant to various complaints made by the petitioner, the respondent no.7 has issued notice to all vehicles dealers in the jurisdiction of Nashik vide letter dated 5^th October 2020 and has instructed flying squads attached with Nashik Regional Transport Office to take action against unauthorized dealers as per the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and rules made thereunder.

¶10

ppn 2 19. pil-73.21.doc

¶11

Inspectors of Motor vehicles attached to the flying squads, Nashik Region have issued 16 checking memos to different classes of vehicles. A chart showing action taken by Flying Squads is annexed to the affidavit-in-reply. The affidavit further indicates that the respondent no.7 has issued show cause notice to 6 dealers asking as to why trade certificate shall not be suspended/cancelled as per provisions made under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and rules made thereunder. The respondent no.7 has already suspended Trade Certificates issued to 6 dealers for the period from 1^st April 2021 to 7^th April 2021 i.e. for 7 days vide order dated 25^th March 2021. Statements made in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent nos.6 and 7 are accepted.

¶12

We direct the respondent nos.6 to 8 to take those actions/proceedings initiated against the offenders to its logical conclusion and not to permit sub-dealers to carry on any such business without they obtaining proper license required under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Central Motor Vehicles Rules and shall be more vigilant in future.

¶13

In our view, the purpose of filing this PIL is achieved. The PIL is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶14

M.S. KARNIK, J.

¶15

R.D. DHANUKA, J.

Ganesh Ramesh Nimbalkar v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Ramesh Nimbalkar v. Union of India 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

Bapu Shankar Dikhe and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Audambar Shiv Shrushti Samiti Thr. Member, Sudhakar Yashvantrao Lomate, Yavatmal Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Prashant Achyutrao Lomate and Another Vs the Union of India and Others

Rajendra Kisan Landge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Allauddin Jilani Inamdar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rahul @ Surendra Bhagwan Shitole Vs the Ceo, Vita Nagarparishad Vita, through Government of Maharashtra

Rahul @ Surendra Bhagwan Shitole Vs the Ceo, Vita Nagarparishad Vita, through Government of Maharashtra

Bhagvanji Rayani vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Shri Anandrao Gopalrao Bhandare Vs Shri Chhagan Sadashiv Jadhdav and Ors.

Satish Jagdish Maral Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Rahul Narayan Bagal and Ors. Vs Gaurav Ganesh Das Daga and Ors.