Anand Moudgil Vs R.D. Nazeem and Others

For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional, Advocate General and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General for respondents.

¶11

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶12

Petitioner alleges violation of directions issued in Anand Moudgil vs. State Transport Authority & another² . Respondents have filed reply pursuant to the notice issued to them on 24.02.2025. 2. Heard the petitioner in person as also learned Advocate General for the respondents.

¶13

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 CWP No. 6578 of 2024, decided on 01.12.2024.

¶14

( 2025:HHC:5440 )

¶15

2

¶16

3. While deciding Anand Moudgil² following directions were

¶17

issued:-

¶18

“8. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed. Annexure P-5 dated 27.06.2024 is quashed and set-aside. Respondent No.1-State Transport Authority is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of Stage Carriage Permit, afresh, within four weeks’ from the date of this order.

¶19

Needless to say, afore authority while doing the needful in terms of directions contained in terms of instant order shall do the needful strictly in terms of prescribed procedure contemplated under Section 72(1) read with Section 80(2) of the Act, read with Rule 57 & 60 of Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1999, as well as law laid down in cases titled Mithilesh Garg Vs. Union of India , 1992 (1) SCC 168, Pancham Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2008 (7) SCC 117, State of U.P. Vs. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358. Since matter is hanging fire for long, this Court hopes and trusts that appropriate decision shall be taken by the competent authority, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks, by affording due opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as other stakeholders. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved.”

¶20

As per above directions, respondent No. 1 – the State Transport Authority was directed to consider petitioner’s application for grant of Stage Carriage Permit, afresh, within four weeks.

¶21

( 2025:HHC:5440 )

¶22

3

¶23

Respondent No. 1 was further directed to consider the petitioner’s application strictly in terms of procedure prescribed as contemplated under Section 72(1) read with Section 80(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Rules 57 & 60 of Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1999, as well as law laid down in cases titled as Mithilesh Garg Vs. Union of India³ ; Pancham Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh⁴ ; and State of U.P. Vs. Singhara Singh⁵ .

¶24

4. Alongwith reply to the Contempt Petition, the respondents have placed on record decision taken by the State Transport Authority in its meeting held on 27.12.2024, as conveyed to the petitioner on 18.01.2025. A perusal of the minutes of meeting dated 27.12.2024 shows that respondents have considered the case of petitioner in compliance to the aforesaid directions issued to it. It seems petitioner is not satisfied with the consideration order passed by the respondents. According to the petitioner, the consideration order passed by the first respondent is not in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder. If that be so, it is for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law against the order/decision of the State Transport Authority. The merits of the consideration order

¶25

3 1992 (1) SCC 168

¶26

4 2008 (7) SCC 117

¶27

5 AIR 1964 SC 358

¶28

( 2025:HHC:5440 )

¶29

4

¶30

passed by the State Transport Authority pursuant to the directions issued in Anand Moudgil² cannot be gone into in this execution petition.

¶31

In view of above, respondents cannot be held to be in contempt of the directions issued by this Court. Hence, these proceedings are closed. Notices issues to the respondents are discharged. Petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy for redressal of his grievance against the consideration order/decision taken by the State Transport Authority, in accordance with law.

¶32

Petition stands disposed of as also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶33

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶34

March 10 , 2025 (PK)

Anand Moudgil v. R.D. Nazeem and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Moudgil v. R.D. Nazeem and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nishu Sehgal Vs the State of Hp and Others

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Parveen Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Anil Kumar Walia Vs the State of Hp and Others

Suman Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Amita Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Others