Baban Mahadeorao Godhankar vs The State Transport Appellate ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3116 Bom

                                1
                                                          wp1639.01.odt

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                   Writ Petition No.1639 of 2001

  Baban Mahadeorao Godhankar,
  Resident of Namuna,
  6th Lane, Amravati.                              ... Petitioner

       Versus

  1. The State Transport Appellate
     Tribunal, Mumbai.

  2. The State Transport Authority,
     through its Secretary,
     Administrative Building,
     4th Floor, 
     Near Dr. Ambedkar Udyan,
     Govt. Colony, Bandra (East),
     Mumbai.

  3. The Transport Commissioner,
     Maharashtra State,
     Administrative Building,
     4th Floor, Near Dr. Ambedkar
     Udyan, Govt. Colony,
     Bandra (East),
     Mumbai.

  *4. Union of India,
      through Ministry of Surface 
      Transport, General Secretariate,
      New Delhi.

  (*As per Court's Order 
  Dated 25-1-2002).                                ... Respondents




::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2017 00:43:32 :::
                                        2
                                                                        wp1639.01.odt


  Shri   V.P.   Maldhure,   Assistant   Government   Pleader   for 
  Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

                Coram : R.K. Deshpande & Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.

th Dated : 13 June, 2017

Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) :

1. This petition challenges the order dated 18-4-2004

passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Revision

Application No.3 of 2001 challenging de-commissioning of the

vehicle, i.e. bus No.MH-27/A 9202.

2. In para 4 of the petition, the averments are as under :

"4. The petitioner's permit has been countersigned which is for a period of 5 years, i.e. upto 12.8.2001. The present difficulty is only with one bus which is of 1990 Model. The petitioner is praying for a limited relief that permit him to run his bus for 8 months during which he will produce a new bus of 2001 model. The question of law will be decided as and when this Hon'ble Court hears this on merits. But this relief is to be granted by an interim order because only one bus cannot operate two

wp1639.01.odt

return trips on this route. Muktagiri is a place of pilgrimage and naturally a lot of persons have to visit that place. It is a famous Jain holy place."

There is no interim order passed by this Court staying the action

impugned in the present petition.

3. Shri Maldhure, the learned Assistant Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, submits that

the petitioner has substituted the bus and the permit was

subsequently in respect of MH-27/A 9213.

4. In view of above, the petition has become infructuous.

The same is, therefore, dismissed as such. Rule stands

discharged. No order as to costs.

                            JUDGE                            JUDGE

   Lanjewar