Disposed

Ms New Prem Bus Service v. State

Himachal Pradesh HC30 Aug 2017CWP/5187/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of a rejection of a bus route permit. The court noted that the basis for rejection had been withdrawn and new directions issued, directing respondents to reconsider the petition holder's case within six weeks with a reasoned order after an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's case in accordance with directions dated 27.5.2014 within six weeks after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a reasoned order.

Ms New Prem Bus Service Vs State — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 5187 of 2012

¶3

Date of decision: August 30, 2017.

¶4

M/s New Prem Bus Service …Petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Himachal Pradesh and others ..Respondents.

¶7

Coram

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

¶9

Whether approved for reporting ?¹ No

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood and Mr. Vasu Sood, Advocates.

¶11

For the Respondents : Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Dy. A.G.

¶12

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

¶13

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming therein the following substantive reliefs:

¶14

“(A) To quash impugned Annexure P-16, passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Dharamshala, qua the petitioner, whereby the route permit of the petitioner from Kangra to Reckongpeo via Jawalaji-Hamirpur-Bilaspur-Shimla-RampurJeori.-Bhawanagar-Tapri-02(01^st , each daily) has been ordered to be rejected without passing reasoned/speaking order with further directions to the respondents to grant/release/renew the route permit known as Kangra to Reckongpeo via Jawalaji-Hamirpur-Bilaspur-Shimla-RampurJeori-Bhawanagar-Tapri-02 (01^st , each daily) in favour of the petitioner in the ends of law and justice.”

¶15

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes

¶16

¶17

It is not in dispute that the case of the petitioner came to be rejected only on the basis of the instructions issued by the respondent vide letter No. CT-9-Deposit of Permit/23437-43 dated 30.11.2004. It is further not in dispute that the aforesaid instruction stands withdrawn and this fact has been duly noticed by this Court in its order dated 9.4.2014 passed in CWP No. 1591 of 2013 titled Anish Kaushal vs. State of H.P. and others. It is apt to reproduce relevant para of the judgment as follows:

¶18

“Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, learned Additional Advocate General, has invited our attention to communication dated 25.3.2014 (Annexure R-3 page 147) to the effect that instructions regarding deposit of permits issued vide letter No. CT-9Deposit of Permit -23437-43 dated 30.11.2004 stand withdrawn with immediate effect.”

¶19

It is lastly not in dispute that in supersession of all

¶20

the earlier orders, the respondents have now issued directions dated 27.5.2014 and, therefore, the case of the petitioner is required to be considered strictly in accordance with these instructions.

¶21

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the

¶22

direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the directions dated 27.5.2014 (Annexure P-19) within a period of six weeks. Needless to say

¶23

¶24

that such exercise shall be undertaken by the competent authority only after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative and further needless to say that the order so passed shall be reasoned and speaking one.

¶25

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶26

August 30, 2017. ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan), (GR) Judge

Ms New Prem Bus Service v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms New Prem Bus Service v. State

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

NTPC Ltd. Vs Gubakash

NTPC Ltd. Vs Ram Dei

NTPC Ltd. Vs Puran Chand

Dr.Rajesh Kumar Vs Union of India

Ram Pal Vs Piar Chand

Pritam Singh deceased through Sarbjit Singh Anr. Vs Sadhu Ram