* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 01.4.2011
+ W.P.(C) No.6340/2010 & CM No.12595/2010
VINOD TIWARI ........... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra and Ms.
Reshmi Rao Sinha, Advocate.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & OTHERS ..........Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
CM Nos.12596/2010 & 12597/2010 (for exemption) Allowed subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) No.6340/2010 & CM No.12595/2010
1. Pleadings are complete.
2. This writ petition has challenge the policy of the Government of the NCT of Delhi i.e. the Sate Transport Authority dated 03.6.2009; the prayer is that this resolution/policy being violative of the various provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act is illegal, unreasonable and also violative of Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the respondent be directed to renew the stage carriage permit of the petitioner and he be permitted to run his bus.
W.P.(C) No. 6340/2010 Page 1 of 3
3. The facts as emanating from the petition are that the bus of the petitioner had met with an accident at Kalindi Kunj, New Delhi on 28.8.2009. Fir No.448/2008 under Sections 279/304 A of the IPC was registered in police station Sarita Vihar against the driver of the bus. Charge sheet was issued against the driver; thereafter the Motor Vehicle Claim Tribunal had awarded compensation to the legal heirs/dependents of the victim vide its order dated 12.7.2010.
4. The petitioner's bus met with a second accident on 14.12.2001; one lady had died; FIR No.26/2010, police station Fatehpur Beri under Sections 379/304A IPC.
5. In view of the aforenoted two accidents, when the petitioner had applied to the department for renewal of his permit the same had been denied. Present petition had accordingly been filed.
6. This policy dated 3.6.2009 was the subject matter of W.P.(C) No.2128/2010 Bernard Soreng Vs. State Transport Authority NCT of Delhi. It has been upheld. It was held that policy was neither discriminatory nor unreasonable.
7. The whole edifice of the case of the petitioner is based on this policy. The petition is not maintainable; it is dismissed.
8. At this stage counsel for the plaintiff submits that in view of the fact that in the first FIR i.e. FIR 448/2008 registered on 28.82009 compensation has been paid to the victim, the case of the petitioner be considered sympathetically and he may be granted a contract carriage permit in terms of this aforenoted policy. It is for the petitioner to approach the department and seek redressal of his grievance.
W.P.(C) No. 6340/2010 Page 2 of 3
9. Writ petition as also pending application is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
APRIAL 01, 2011 nandan W.P.(C) No. 6340/2010 Page 3 of 3