Wednesday, 22, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Durgashankar Ghanshyam Agrawal vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3850 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 3850 Bom
Judgement Date : 1 July, 2017

Bombay High Court
Durgashankar Ghanshyam Agrawal vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 1 July, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP  818-13 & Bunch                                  1               Common  Judgment

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                 WRIT PETITION No. 818/2013
Dinesh S/o Janraoji Bhonde,
Aged about 33 years, Occu: Educated Umemployed,
R/o Meharabpura, Achalpur City,
Distt. Amravati.                                                           PETITIONER

                                   .....VERSUS.....
1.    State of Maharashtra,
      through its Secretary,
      Ministry of Home Affairs,
      Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2.    State Transport Authority,
      Maharashtra State, Administrative Building,
      Dr.Ambedkar Udyan, Government Colony,
      Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.
3.    Transport Commissioner,
      Administrative Building, Dr.Ambedkar 
      Udyan, Government Colony,
      Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.
4.    State Transport Authority,
      through its Secretary,
      Motimahal, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh.                                     RESPONDENTS

WITH WRIT PETITION No. 5257/2012 Zakir Hussain Yusufali, Aged about 67 years, Occu: Business, R/o Mohmedali Road, Akola-444 001. PETITIONER

.....VERSUS.....

1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2. State Transport Authority, Maharashtra State, Administrative Building, Dr.Ambedkar Udyan, Government Colony, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.

3. Transport Commissioner, Administrative Building, Dr.Ambedkar Udyan, Government Colony, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.

4. State Transport Authority, through its Secretary, Motimahal, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. RESPONDENTS

WP 818-13 & Bunch 2 Common Judgment

WITH WRIT PETITION No. 5258/2012 Durgashankar Ghanshyam Agrawal, Aged about 40 years, Occu: Business, R/o Paratwada, Tq.Achalpur, Distt. Amravati. PETITIONER .....VERSUS.....

1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2. State Transport Authority, Maharashtra State, Administrative Building, Dr.Ambedkar Udyan, Government Colony, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.

3. Transport Commissioner, Administrative Building, Dr.Ambedkar Udyan, Government Colony, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.

4. State Transport Authority, through its Secretary, Motimahal, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. RESPONDENTS

WITH WRIT PETITION No. 5259/2012 Shamsuddin Yusuf Ali, Aged about 60 years, Occu: Business, R/o Mohmedali Road, Akola-440 001. PETITIONER .....VERSUS.....

1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2. State Transport Authority, Maharashtra State, Administrative Building, Dr.Ambedkar Udyan, Government Colony, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.

3. Transport Commissioner, Administrative Building, Dr.Ambedkar Udyan, Government Colony, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.

4. State Transport Authority, through its Secretary, Motimahal, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. RESPONDENTS

WP 818-13 & Bunch 3 Common Judgment

WITH WRIT PETITION No. 5261/2012 Seema W/o Kamalkant Ladole, Aged about 45 years, Occu: Business, R/o Ladole Bhavan, Near Rest House, Tah. Anjangaon Surji, Distt. Amravati. PETITIONER

.....VERSUS.....

1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2. State Transport Authority, Maharashtra State, Administrative Building, Dr.Ambedkar Udyan, Government Colony, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.

3. Transport Commissioner, Administrative Building, Dr.Ambedkar Udyan, Government Colony, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.

4. State Transport Authority, through its Secretary, Motimahal, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. RESPONDENTS

WITH WRIT PETITION No. 5262/2012 Durgashankar Ghanshyam Agrawal, Aged about 40 years, Occu: Business, R/o Paratwada, Tq.Achalpur, Distt. Amravati. PETITIONER .....VERSUS.....

1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2. State Transport Authority, Maharashtra State, Administrative Building, Dr.Ambedkar Udyan, Government Colony, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.

3. Transport Commissioner, Administrative Building, Dr.Ambedkar Udyan, Government Colony, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.

4. State Transport Authority, through its Secretary, Motimahal, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. RESPONDENTS

WP 818-13 & Bunch 4 Common Judgment

WITH WRIT PETITION No. 5267/2012 Durgashankar Ghanshyam Agrawal, Aged about 40 years, Occu: Business, R/o Paratwada, Tq.Achalpur, Distt. Amravati. PETITIONER .....VERSUS.....

1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2. State Transport Authority, Maharashtra State, Administrative Building, Dr.Ambedkar Udyan, Government Colony, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.

3. Transport Commissioner, Administrative Building, Dr.Ambedkar Udyan, Government Colony, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.

4. State Transport Authority, through its Secretary, Motimahal, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh . RESPONDENTS

WITH WRIT PETITION No. 5268/2012 Rajendra S/o Mahadeorao Godhankar, Aged about 55 years, Occu: Business, R/o Namuna Galli, Amravati. PETITIONER

.....VERSUS.....

1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2. State Transport Authority, Maharashtra State, Administrative Building, Dr.Ambedkar Udyan, Government Colony, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.

3. Transport Commissioner, Administrative Building, Dr.Ambedkar Udyan, Government Colony, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.

4. State Transport Authority, through its Secretary, Motimahal, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. RESPONDENTS

WP 818-13 & Bunch 5 Common Judgment

Shri R.L. Khapre, counsel for the petitioner in all the writ petitions. Mrs. M.Naik, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-State in all the writ petitions.

CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND

ST JULY, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is identical and

similar orders of the Transport Commissioner and the State Transport

Appellate Authority are challenged therein, they are heard together and

are decided by this common judgment.

2. Shri Khapre, the learned counsel for the petitioners, states

that similar order passed by the Transport Commissioner, as are passed in

these cases and the common order of the State Transport Authority, was

challenged by M/s Chawla Transport Company in Writ Petition No.663 of

2013 and this Court has, by an order dated 13.08.2013, allowed the said

writ petition and after setting aside the orders passed by the Transport

Commissioner and the State Transport Appellate Authority, remanded the

matter to the Transport Commissioner for passing a fresh order in

accordance with law. It is stated that M/s Chawla Transport Company,

the petitioner in Writ Petition No.663 of 2013 and the present petitioners

were the appellants before the State Transport Appellate Authority and

the State Transport Appellate Authority has passed a common order in

WP 818-13 & Bunch 6 Common Judgment

the cases of the petitioners and M/s Chawla Transport Company. It is

stated that in view of the aforesaid, it would be necessary to allow these

petitions on parity and remand the same to the Transport Commissioner

for a fresh decision on merits.

3. We had called for Writ Petition No.663 of 2013 and perused

the same. On a perusal of the same, we find that the issue involved in

these cases and in Writ Petition No.663 of 2013 decided on 13.08.2013 is

not only similar but, the common order that governs the appeal of the

petitioner in Writ Petition No.663 of 2013 also governs the appeals of the

petitioners herein. It would be necessary, as submitted on behalf of the

petitioners, to pass a similar order, on parity.

4. Hence, for the reasons stated hereinabove and also for the

reasons recorded in the order, dated 13.08.2013 in Writ Petition No.663

of 2013, the writ petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders of

the Transport Commissioner and the State Transport Appellate Authority

are hereby quashed and set aside. The matters are remanded to the

Transport Commissioner for deciding the same in accordance with law

after considering the observations made by this Court in the order, dated

13.08.2013 in Writ Petition No.663 of 2013.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

              JUDGE                                           JUDGE

APTE


 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter