Disposed

(O&M) the Chandigarh Tourist Bus Operator Assoc. v. Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Sept 2012CWP/5658/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of writ petitions seeking directions to earmark parking places for contract carriage buses. It observed that existing sites catered for fewer buses than registered. The Court directed authorities to create additional parking places if required and ensure notified sites are not encroached.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to create additional parking places if required and to ensure notified parking places are available without obstruction.

(O&M) the Chandigarh Tourist Bus Operator… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

��

¶2

¶3

CWP No.5658 of 1999 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.09.2012

¶4

¶5

The Chandigarh Tourist Bus Operator’s Association & Anr.

vs.

UT Chandigarh & Ors.

��

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

¶14

Present: Mr. GS Bal, Advocate for the petitioners

¶15

Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate for the respondents

¶16

¶17

��

¶18

(1). This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.5658 of 1999; and 7868 of 2001 wherein the petitioners have sought a direction to the Chandigarh Administration to earmark places for parking of the buses of private operators to whom Contract Carriage Permits and All India Tourist Permits have been granted. There is an additional prayer made in CWP No.7868 of 2001 that the parking sites should directed to be allotted to owners of the buses having contract carriage permits as per the lists maintained by the State Transport Authority, UT Chandigarh.

¶19

(2). CWP No.5658 of 1999 came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on 27.07.1999 when the following order was passed:- “This writ petition has been filed by the Chandigarh Tourist Bus Operator’s Association on behalf of its members making a grievance that Chandigarh

¶20

��

¶21

��

¶22

Administration is not providing them with any site for parking their tourist vehicles and for setting up their offices etc.

¶23

In the short reply filed by the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Chandigarh, it is pleaded that Chandigarh Administration is in the process of notifying the proposed parking sites for tourist buses in the Union Territory, Chandigarh and that final notification in this regard will have to be issued by the Finance Department. It is further pleaded that till such time the proposed sites are notified some sites in the Sectors referred to in para 2 of the reply are proposed to be allowed for parking of tourist and contract carriage buses.

¶24

In view of the reply filed by the Administration, we are of the view that some time should be allowed to the Administration to notify the proposed sites. Meanwhile, Chandigarh Administration through the Estate Officer is directed to regulate the parking of buses at the proposed temporary sites in the Sectors referred to in para 2 of the short reply.”

¶25

(3). In CWP No.7868 of 2001, the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh (respondent No.4) has filed its reply/affidavit, para 5 whereof reads as follows:-

¶26

��

¶27

��

¶28

“It is correct that the parking capacity of nine sites notified by the District Magistrate under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 196 of the Rules catered for 86 tourist buses whereas the actual number of buses registered are approximately 140. For the buses beyond the figure of 86, the answering respondent took up the matter with the Chief Architect UT Administration Chandigarh to earmark more sites to accommodate the remaining registered buses. This request led to the issuance of notification dated 24.9.2001 by the District Magistrate, Chandigarh earmarking seven more sites at various places mentioned in the notification to accommodate an additional 51 buses.”

¶29

(4). A similar plea has been taken by the Chandigarh Administration in para 2 of its written statement where it is averred that “further additional parking has already been provided in terms of the Notification dated 24.09.2001 as stated above”. The Chandigarh Administration has placed on record the Notifications dated 06.08.1999 and 24.09.2001.

¶30

(5). It is apparent from the above-stated plea(s) taken by the official respondents that as against approximately 140 buses having Contract Carriage Permits and All India Tourist Permits, parking sites for 86 plus 51 buses have been earmarked.

¶31

��

¶32

��

¶33

(6). The respondent-Authorities are thus conscious of their duties in terms of Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with the provisions contained in the Chandigarh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990 whereunder they are obligated to earmark/create parking places for public service vehicles in proportion to the permits as and when granted. Suffice it would be to observe and direct that if there is any deficiency in the parking places as of now, the respondents shall take necessary steps to create/provide additional parking place in accordance with law. Similarly, the authorities are required and are directed that the earmarked parking places for afore-stated buses are not encroached upon or occupied by other vehicles as it always leads to chaos and congestion in public and market places which is detrimental to public convenience.

¶34

(7). The question as to whether the UT Chandigarh Administration/Municipal Corporation are entitled to levy parking fee on the public service vehicles having Contract Carriage Permit is not the subject matter of challenge in these writ petitions. It is stated by Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation that levy of parking fee is under challenge before this Court in CWP No.16127 of 2000 which is not listed along with these cases.

¶35

(8). Consequently and for the reasons afore-stated, both these writ petitions though partly infructuous, are disposed of with the directions issued hereinabove for creation of additional parking place, if so required, keeping in view the increased strength of permits and to make available the notified parking places without any obstruction. The

¶36

��

¶37

��

¶38

disposal of these writ petitions shall be without prejudice to the right of the permit-holder(s) against levy of parking fee which is already the subject matter of challenge CWP No.16127 of 2000.

¶39

(9). Ordered accordingly. Dasti .

¶40

��

¶41

!"#$%�"#&'($)

¶42

�� *+,-

(O&M) the Chandigarh Tourist Bus Operator Assoc. v. Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) the Chandigarh Tourist Bus Operator Assoc. v. Ut of Chandigarh 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

Case details

Similar cases

Ultimate Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Frazer Foods India Pvt. Ltd.

Technocrats Medical Devices Pvt. Ltd. Vs Patan Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.

Kuldeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Nirmala Devi Vs Secy.Power and Chairperson Hvpnb etc.

Balwinder Singh Vs Ut Chd.Admn.

Surinder Sharma Vs Ut Chd.