Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jai Maa Kamana Taxi Maxi Operators vs State Of H.P. And Others on 15 March, 2021
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy, Anoop Chitkara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 28 of 2020
Decided on: 15.03.2021
.
Jai Maa Kamana Taxi Maxi Operators, Union .......Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ......Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner: Ms. Tanu Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate
r General with Mr. Adarsh
Sharma and Mr. Nand Lal
Thakur, Addl. A.Gs for
respondents-State.
Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naresh K.
Gupta, Advocate for
respondents No.2.
Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate for
respondent No.5.
L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice (Oral)
Challenging the impugned notice dated 27.12.2019,
the petitioner-Union has come up before this Court with a prayer
to quash and set aside the same.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner-
Taxi Operators Union, they are operating their business and at
their request, the Municipal Corporation, Shimla after having
considered their request, were permitted by allotting office
space by its communication dated 22.11.2019. The notice
Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
further reveals that after having alloted the same in favour of the
petitioner-Union, it is noticed that the allotted space belongs to
.
National Highway Authority, for which the Municipal Corporation
is not competent to allot the said premises to the petitioner.
Hence, by issuing this notice directing the petitioner to remove
the structure or set-up raised on the said space within two days
and further it was communicated that in case if it is not, the
Municipal Corporation, Shimla at the cost of petitioner will
demolish/remove the structure is put up on the allotted
premises.
3. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner-
Union is operating this business and has no other space alloted
by the Municipal Corporation. Under these circumstances, what
has been allotted is the office space from where the petitioner-
Union is permitted to operate the said business in the same
premises. Under these circumstances, the respondent-Municipal
Corporation without examining their submissions, has issued the
impugned notice. Hence, a prayer has been made to set aside
the notice and to permit the petitioner-Union to run their
business.
4. Learned senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Naresh K.
Gupta, Advocate appearing for the respondent-Corporation has
prayed for dismissal of this petition.
5. The National Highway Authority of India who is
competent to allot or cancel any space which belongs to the
.
NHAI. Without ascertaining the fact that the NHAI is the right
authority to do so, the respondent-Corporation by mis-
conception has allotted this premises to the petitioner. Now, it is
by issuing this notice directing them to withdraw the same,
Hence, their action is not only arbitrary muchless illegal also.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is true that the petitioner-Union is entitled to
operate their business i.e. the Taxi Operators Union. In fact, they
are the members of the Union depending upon the business for
the purpose of livelihood and also their dependents. Under
these circumstances, in order to effectively carry out the
business, they are entitled for the office space. Rightly, the
respondent-Corporation has considered their request and
allotted the said premises and only after they realized that this
space belongs to NHAI. Under these circumstances, it is right
that they have issued a notice to the petitioner-Union to vacate
the said office. Though, the NHAI has not been made party but
they are the competent authority to file any application for
vacation of interim order. However, they are not come forward
to make any such application before this Court and the petitioner
also should have take-up the matter with the said respondent.
8. Be that as it may, under these circumstances, we
permit the petitioner-Union to approach the Municipal
.
Corporation, Shimla for allotment of similar space to carry out
their business of Union. On consideration, the Additional
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, who is present in
the Court, on his instructions, learned Senior Advocate has
submitted that genuineness of the case for allotment of similar
space for Taxi Operator Union would be considered and
appropriate orders would be passed. His statement is taken on
record.
In the light of the order, it is expected that the
petitioner-Union would voluntarily remove the structure put up
as per allotment dated 22.11.2019 and peacefully hand over the
same to the NHAI authorities. The petitioner-Union shall
demolish/remove the same within two days i.e., from
16.03.2021. Alternative space be allotted to the petitioner-Union
within one month positively.
9. With the above observations, the writ petition is
disposed of. The interim orders passed in this petition also stand
vacated automatically. Pending application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
( L. Narayana Swamy )
Chief Justice
March 15, 2021 ( Anoop Chitkara )
(naveen) Judge
