The High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by an auto-rickshaw association challenging Government orders permitting new vehicles. The Court held the petition was filed merely to advance the interests of existing drivers, not in the true public interest, thereby failing the PIL test.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.312 OF 2012
Dt: 17-09-2012.
Between: BANJARA WELFARE ASSOCIATION PLOT NO.81, JANARDHAN REDDY NAGAR, BHUPESH GUPTA NAGAR, KARMANGHAT, HYDERABAD REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT A.RAVINDER .. PETITIONER
AND GOVT. OF A.P. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT, ROADS AND BUILDINGS (TR.I) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.312 OF 2012
ORDER: (Per THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)
This writ petition is filed under the Public Interest jurisdiction praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the G.O.Ms.No.90, Transport, Roads and Buildings (TR.I) Department, dated 5.9.2012 issued by the 1st respondent permitting about 20,000 new auto-rickshaws to ply within Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation area limits as illegal, without jurisdiction, violative of Environmental and Pollution laws and also violative of the fundamental and human rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
In the guise Public Interest Litigation the petitioner has filed this writ petition only to espouse the cause on behalf of the owners and drivers of auto rickshaws, who are members of the petitioner-Association, which has been specifically admitted in paragraph No.2 of the writ affidavit.
The primary grievance of the petitioner appears to be based upon the decision taken by the Government under G.O.Ms.No.137, Transport, Roads and Buildings (TR.II) Department, dated 6.8.2002 restricting the three wheeled contract carriages in the twin cities to 68,469 permits and directing that no new permit in respect of three wheeled contract carriages shall be granted. The petitioner states that the present impugned decision under G.O.Ms.No.133, Transport, Roads and Buildings (TR.I) Department, dated 24.11.2011 as well as G.O.Ms.No.90, Transport, Roads and Buildings (TR.I) Department, dated 5.9.2012 is contrary to the earlier policy under
G.O.Ms.No.137 Transport, Roads and Buildings (TR.II) Department, dated 6.8.2002. The other contention raised by the petitioner is that permitting new auto rickshaws to be registered and ply in the city would give rise to increased pollution.
In our opinion, both the said contentions are not sustainable. The earlier G.O.Ms.No.137 Transport, Roads and Buildings (TR.II) Department, dated 6.8.2002 was issued almost ten years back and thereafter the Government has specifically mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.133, Transport, Roads and Buildings (TR.I) Department, dated 24.11.2011 that since the last Government Order Hyderabad Municipal Corporation has been extended to Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. For the convenience of the public permission to ply 3500 new auto rickshaws within the GHMC area limits was necessary to be granted and is accordingly granted. To the extent of the concern of the petitioner with regard to pollution also the said Government Order itself states that the permission is granted to the registration of said new auto rickshaws which are required to be driven on LPG/CNG only in order to protect pollution concern. In view of the said safeguards already provided the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also not sustainable.
It also appears to us that the writ petition is filed only to espouse the cause of owners/drivers of the auto rickshaws who are already plying within the city, as is specifically admitted by the petitioner in paragraph No.2 of the affidavit.
In view of that, this writ petition cannot be treated as a Public Interest Litigation in espousing the cause of existing owners and drivers of the auto rickshaws.
Accordingly, this Public Interest Litigation is dismissed.
( PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ )
Dt: 17-09-2012.
( VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J )
TNB
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition filed by an association of auto-rickshaw owners and drivers concerning Government orders permitting new vehicles falls within Public Interest Litigation.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Banjara Welfare Association
Govt. of A.P.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
