Vinod Tiwari vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 1915 Del

*      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.

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.

9. Writ petition as also pending application is dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

APRIAL 01, 2011 nandan