Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On : 2.3.2023 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 2 March, 2023
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP No. 7693/2022
Decided on : 2.3.2023
Kanta Devi .....Petitioner
Versus
.
State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. ....Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1No
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. I.N.
Mehta, Mr. Y. W. Chauhan, Sr. Addl.
A.Gs., Mr. J. S. Guleria, Dy.A.G. and
and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for
respondents No. 1 and 3.
r Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate, for
respondent No.2
_____________________________________________________________________
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral)
The instant petition has been filed for grant of the
substantive reliefs:
(a) by way of writ, order, or direction, in the nature of
Mandamus Respondent No.2 kindly be restrained from
plying his bus "illegally" without any route permit or
timetable:
(b) by way of writ, order, or direction, in the nature of
Mandamus Respondent No.3 may kindly be restrained from
granting bus route permit to the respondent No. 2 without
following due process of law and without affording
opportunity to be heard to the Petitioner;
(c) hearing and deciding objections of the Petitioner.
Furthermore heavy cost may very kindly be imposed on the
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
respondent No.2 for causing "losses and damages" to the
petitioner, in the interest of justice.
.
(d) by way of, the writ, order or directions; respondent No. 3
may very kindly be directed to cancel the bus route of the
respondent No.2 if already granted on the back of the
petitioner in the interest of justice.
2 The petitioner claims herself to be a self-employed in
transport business and is plying two buses, which are running
on Una to Bassi route. According to the petitioner, respondent
No.2-Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC) is illegally
plying its bus from Kiratpur Sahib to Nangal Dam via Kola Wala
Toba, Bassi, Gawalthai without any valid route permit and time
table.
3 It is averred that the route permit of bus of HRTC is
from Jeoripattan-Swarghat-Kiratpur Sahib-Nangal and, therefore,
the bus has to be plied directly via Punjab on the main road, but
in order to harass and damage the petitioner, HRTC has diverted
its bus from Anandpur Sahib to Nangal via Ganguwal Mod,
Bassi, Gawalthai as route of HRTC is interstate and cannot be
changed unless there is approval of State Transport Authority.
4 The Regional Manager of respondent No.2-HRTC, who
has been arrayed as party-respondent in his official as well as
personal capacity, has filed his reply, wherein it has been
specifically stated that HRTC has a valid route permit to ply its
.
bus from Jeoripattan-Kiratpur-Nangal, which was issued by the
Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur in the year 2005 and is
currently valid upto 3.8.2025. The HRTC is plying its bus on the
aforesaid route since 1985. The bus service was provisionally
suspended during COVID-19 due to resource constraints and
was restored w.e.f. 8.9.2022 and the bus is now plying on the
said route, whereas bus of the petitioner is operating on Bassi to
Una route and thus, objections raised by the petitioner are totally
baseless.
5 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
have also gone through the material placed on record.
6 The stage carriage permit of respondent No.2-HRTC is
available on record as Annexure R-1, which shows the route and
area of the permit of the bus to be from Jeoripattan-Kiratpur-
Nangal.
7 Apart from that, even time table of the bus, as issued
by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, is also available
on record, relevant portion whereof reads as under:-
15:00 A Jeoripattan D 09:20
.
14.00 D Swarghat D 10:00
12:15 D Kiratpur D 11:15
11:50 D Nangal A 11:45
8 Now, in case time table is perused, it would be noticed
that not only the stations, even the time of arrival and departure
of the bus of HRTC has been specifically mentioned in the time
table. Nowhere does the time table or for that matter, the route
permit state that the bus of HRTC cannot be plied from
Anandpur Sahib to Nangal via Ganguwal Mod, Bassi, Gawalthai
(HP) as is otherwise contended by the petitioner. Such inference
is being drawn by the petitioner beyond the comprehension of the
Court.
9 Apart from above, it would have been entirely a
different matter if respondent No.2-HRTC has not been adhering
to time as provided in the time table. There is no allegation in the
entire petition that because of deviation in the route, bus of
HRTC is not in a position to adhere to the time table for any of
the four stations as mentioned in the time table.
10 Once that be so, obviously contention of the petitioner
that the bus of respondent No.2-HRTC cannot ply from Anandpur
.
Sahib to Nangal via Ganguwal Mod, Bassi, Gawalthai (HP) is only
a figment of her imagination and holds no water.
11 In view of aforesaid discussions, we find no merit in
the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so
also the pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear
their own costs.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
(Virender Singh)
2.3.2023 Judge
(pankaj)
