Pankaj Kapoor vs State Transport Authority And ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 1604 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the DTC to comply with the terms of the agreement dated 1.12.2000 and permit the petitioner to ply his bus bearing No. DL-1PA 6896 under the kilometer scheme. Petitioner also seeks a direction for necessary correction/alteration in the permit dated 6.4.2001, issued to the petitioner to enable the DTC to run the bus under the kilometer scheme.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that kilometer scheme is no longer in operation. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 15.1.2001. It was pointed out that petitioner had failed to complete the requisite formalities and start the bus within the stipulated time of 15 days. Petitioner was given final opportunity to start the operation within 7 days, failing which the EMD security deposited by the petitioner would stand forfeited. Petitioner replied to the same claiming that the respondent/DTC had failed to obtain the route permit from STA Delhi and DTC itself was responsible for the delay and the petitioner could not operate the bus without the route permit. Counsel states that this permit was obtained on 25.1.2001 and hence the threat in the show cause notice was wholly unwarranted.

3. Ms. Mamta Mehra, counsel for DTC has brought to my attention the letter dated 6.12.2000 by the petitioner, where he sought the allotment of route No. 817. Again the petitioner vide his letter of 25.1.2001 appearing at page 74 of the paper book did a volte face and stated that since he was residing at Janakpuri, it was impossible for him to manage route No. 817. He therefore wanted route No. 721. It is relevant to note that 25.1.2001 is the date on which the permit was taken. Respondent/DTC on the other hand claims that the petitioner had failed to start the bus and terminated the contract on 25.1.2001. In my view, even if the petitioner contests the breach alleged in the show cause notice dated 15.1.2001 issued by respondent No. 2 on merits and claims that petitioner had duly complied with the formalities, the petitioner cannot escape from the fact that it was the petitioner himself, who first asked for route No. 817 and then finally on 25.1.2001 expressed his inability to operate the rouge and asked for a change to 721.

4. In these circumstances, respondents cannot be faulted with for having treated the agreement as having been terminated and rendered unworkable on account of petitioners own actions.

5. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner makes a request that respondent/DTC may be asked to consider the employment of petitioner's bus, which is a CNG Bus. Ms. Mamta Mehra, counsel for DTC, states that the question of engagement of petitioner's bus is now within the domain of respondent No. 1. Petitioner may apply to respondent No. 1 for allotment of a route for CNG bus in accordance with the rules. The application may be sympathetically considered in accordance with the rules and policy keeping in mind that the petitioner is a young Graduate and due to circumstances as narrated above, it had not been able to utilise the bus and is virtually unemployed. Respondents to take a decision on the application within four weeks on its receipt.

Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.