Dismissed

Yudhbir Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Jan 2019CWP/17189/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition for mandamus seeking a timetable for Route no. 15 under the City Bus Service Scheme, 2004. The petitioners alleged an error in a previous allotment order. The High Court held the petition maintainable and dismissed it, ruling that a correction by the Regional Transport Authority cures the error and the petitioners failed to exhaust the remedy of appeal under the Motor Vehic

What the court decided

AI extract

Yudhbir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Haryana… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

CWP No. 17189 of 2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 17189 of 2017

¶5

Date of decision : 28.01.2019

Yudhbir Singh & anr.

....Petitioners

V/s

State of Haryana & ors.

¶10

....Respondents

¶11

BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶12

Present: Mr. Inder Pal Goyat, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Ms. Sofia Gupta, AAG Haryana.

¶14

Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate for the applicant in CM-16454-2017

¶15

RAJAN GUPTA J.

¶16

Petitioners have preferred this writ petition in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent no. 3 to allot time table to them on Route no. 15 under City Bus Service Scheme, 2004. According to them, the route was allotted vide order dated 26.05.2017, Annexure P-8 passed in a meeting of the Regional Transport Authority. A reply has been filed by the respondents. It has been submitted therein that petitioners were permit holders under City Service Scheme, 2004. They had applied for change of route. Their request was considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Gurgaon headed by Transport Commissioner, Haryana in its meeting held on 16.05.2017 and petitioners were granted Route No. 15. In said decision, it has been inadvertently mentioned ‘Pataudi’ instead of ‘Pataudi Road (Dhankot)’. In the proceedings of RTA, Gurugram held on 16.05.2017, a correction was made and conveyed to the petitioners vide letter no. 22.06.2017. Thus, prayer of the petitioners for allotting the route Sector 56,

¶17

AJAY KUMAR 2019.01.29 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶18

CWP No. 17189 of 2017

¶19

¶20

Gurgaon Bus Stand, Railway Station, Sector 10 Pataudi is misconceived. Besides, petitioners did not avail the remedy of appeal as envisaged under section 89/90 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Thus, petition is not maintainable.

¶21

I find substance in the plea of the State. Petitioners cannot be allotted an alternate route only for the reason that there was a bona fide mistake in the letter issued earlier. Same was duly corrected in the subsequent meeting of the Regional Transport Authority. Petitioners did not even avail the remedy of appeal.

¶22

Under the circumstances, writ petition is without any merit and

¶23

is hereby dismissed.

¶24

January 28, 2019 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE

¶25

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶26

AJAY KUMAR 2019.01.29 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Yudhbir Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Yudhbir Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Pandir and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

New Malwa Highways Bus Service (Regd.) Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Joseph Paul Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sunil Kumar Khosla Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Inder Preet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.