Bimla Kumari vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 1801 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                            Date of Judgment: 28.03.2011


+                       W.P.(C) No.3536/2010 & CM No.7044/2010


BIMLA KUMARI                                       ........... petitioner
                        Through:   Ms. Rani Chhabra, 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)

1 This writ petition has sought the quashing of the scheme

propounded by the Government of NCT of Delhi which was a

scheme propounded for the operation of private stage carriage

service in Delhi. This scheme was promulgated in the year 2007. It

was known as 'Operation of private stage carriage service in Delhi'.

It provided that the entities selected through competition would

provide stage carriage service under a suitable and contractual

structure; specific performance standards would be prescribed.

Contention in this petition is that the said scheme framed by the

respondent Government is contrary to the provisions of the Motor

Vehicle Act. Prayer in the petition is that the said scheme be

quashed.

2 A Division Bench of this Court had been ceased of various

matters under the Motor Vehicle Act including the said scheme i.e.

scheme of 2007 relating to the operation of private stage carriage

service in Delhi. The Division Bench had pronounced its judgment

in W.P.(Crl.) 878/2007 titled Court on its own motion Vs. State of

NCT of Delhi & Ors. decided on 03.03.2011. It is not in dispute that

this scheme was a subject matter of the judgment of the Division

Bench; a detailed scrutiny of the said scheme had been gone into;

it has been upheld; it has also been implemented. There is no

dispute about this. The relevant extract of the judgment of the

Division Bench is from para 29 onwards.

3 In view of the above, the present petition is not maintainable.

Writ petition as also pending application is dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

MARCH 28, 2011 a