M/S Sharma Bus Service vs State Of H.P
2022 Latest Caselaw 2521 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                  ON THE 2nd DAY OF MAY, 2022
                            BEFORE




                                                      .
         HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA





               CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1173 of 2014
             Between:-





             M/S SHARMA BUS SERVICE
             THROUGH ITS PROPRIETRESS
             SMT. KUSUM SHARMA
             WIFE OF SHRI GIAN CHAND SHARMA,
             RESIDENT OF CHINTPURNI NIWAS,




             KHALINI SHIMLA-171002,
             ACTING THROUGH HER GENERAL
             POWER OF ATTORNEY/HUSBAND
             SHRI GIAN CHAND SHARMA,
             SON OF SHRI JAGAN NATH SHAMRA,

             RESIDENT OF CHINTPURNI NIWAS,

             KHALINI, SHIMLA-171002.

                                                  .....PETITIONER

               (BY MR. NEEL KAMAL SOOD, ADVOCATE)



               AND

        1.      STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,




                THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
                SECRETARY (TRANSPORT)





                TO THE GOVERNMENT
                OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
                SHIMLA-171002





        2.      THE STATE TRANSPORT
                AUTHORITY, THROUGH ITS
                SECRETARY PARIVAHAN BHAWAN,
                SHIMLA-171004

        3.      REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
                SHIMLA THROUGH ITS
                SECRETARY (RTO) SHIMLA,
                DISTRICT SHIMLA (H.P.)




                                     ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2022 20:05:57 :::CIS
                                              2


           4.    REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
                 SOLAN, THROUGH ITS
                 SECRETARY (RTO) SOLAN,
                 DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.

           5.    THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,




                                                                     .
                 HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT





                 CORPORATION, SHIMLA -171003

           6.    THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
                 HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT





                 CORPORATION, SHIMLA.
                                         .....RESPONDENTS

               (MR. ARVIND SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
               GENERAL WITH MR. NARENDER SINGH THAKUR,




               DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R-1 TO 4.
               MS. SHUBH MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 & 6.)
    ____________________________________________________________
               This petition coming on for hearing this day, the

    Court passed the following:

                                    ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for the grant of

following substantive reliefs: -

"i) Annexure P-6, issued by the Respondent No.5, i.e.

Office Order dated 30.11.2013, vide which bus for the route Shimla-Solan on fixed fare @ Rs.40/- has been

ordered to be plied, may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside and further the Respondents may kindly be

restrained from plying Himachal Road Transport Corporation bus on Shimla-Solan route, without resorting to the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and rules framed thereunder and without complying with the provisions of Sections 70 & 72 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 19889 as amended up to date).

ii) The Respondents may kindly be further directed to comply with Annexure P-3, Annexure P-4 & Annexure P-5 and act in accordance with he said Annexures and fare

rate be ordered to be charged accordingly as per Annexure P-4, Annexure P-5 i.e. Rs.68/- for one side from Shimla to Solan.

iii) Directing the Respondents not to ply Himachal Road Transport Corporation bus owned by Respondents

.

No.5&6, parallel to the bus of the Petitioner, which is

causing impediments in the free trade and flow of the trade and business of the Petitioner and is violating

provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(G), 21 & 301 of the Constitution of India. And further plying of bus on the strength of Annexure P-6 is totally in violation of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated

04.03.2008, passed in Appeal (Civil ) No.1732/2008, in case tilted as ' Pancham Chand & Others Vs State of H.P. & Others" annexure as Annexure P-9 with the writ petition."

2. During hearing of the case today, learned counsel

for the petitioner submitted that relief Nos. (i) and (ii) have

been granted to the petitioner during pendency of the petition,

therefore, no dispute remains pending between the parties in

respect of these two reliefs. It was further submitted that

relief No.(iii) pertains to the alleged prejudice caused to the

petitioner on account of parallel running of a bus by Himachal

Road Transport Corporation on the same route as is allowed to

the petitioner.

3. In respect of the disputes regarding time

table issued to the petitioner, following has been mentioned by

respondents No.1 to 4 in their reply:-

"19 That the time table is issued to the applicant on the available frequency on the segment. The office does not issue time table in advance alongwith grant letter, because there are many existing operators already operating on the segment have to be taken care of.

.

Provisional time table is issued in favour of applicant later

on regular time table is issued in joint time table meeting. If any objection is received from any stake holder same is

settled in joint time table meeting.

20. In reply to this Para it is submitted that time Table is a condition of permit as prescribed under Section 72 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Regional Transport Officer from

time to time convene the joint Time Table meeting in their respective jurisdiction in the present of existing operators of same route/line and representatives of Himachal Road Transport Corporation, so that problem of parallel running

of buses/clash of timing is avoided."

Taking note of above submissions, this writ

petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to prefer his

representation regarding time table for the route in question to

respondents No.3 and 4/competent authority within a period

of three weeks from today, who shall consider and decide the

same, in accordance with law, within further three weeks. The

decision so arrived at, will be communicated to the petitioner.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand

disposed of.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 2, 2022 R.Atal