Anand Moudgil vs State Transport Authority Ut Of ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2337 j&K

                                                                        Sr. No.56


       HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU

                                                 WP(C) No. 2177/2022 (O&M)

Anand Moudgil
S/o Sh. Jatinder Moudgil
Resident of 128-B, FF, BRS Nagar, Ludhiana
(Punjab)                                                        ....Petitioner(s)

                  Through :- Petitioner is present in person.

             v.

State Transport Authority UT of J&K
Through its chairman cum Transport
Commissioner, J&K Rail Head
Complex Jammu                                               ....Respondent(s)

                  Through :-   Mr. Deewakar Sharma, Dy. AG

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE

                                     ORDER

18.10.2023

1. Petitioner, in the capacity of being proprietor of his proprietorship concern

under the name and style of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Bus Service, applied for

stage carriage permit on 30.12.2019 for different routes mentioned in the writ

petition. According to the petitioner, he was called by the Chairman of STA-cum-

Commissioner Transport on 09.01.2020, who assured him to do the needful within

seven days. However, on account of no response, he lodged a grievance at the

grievance portal of the Hon'ble Governor. In response to the said grievance, the

Assistant Transport Commissioner, Jammu vide impugned order dated

29.10.2020, rejected the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereof, petitioner

preferred a writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 1078 of 2021 to question the

impugned order, which came to be dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court vide order dated 05.07.2022 on account of lack of status and locus standi.

Petitioner preferred a review petition, which too, did not find favour with the

review Court, however, it was observed by the review Court that dismissal of the

aforesaid writ petition and the review petition shall not come in the way of the

petitioner to file a writ petition in his own right and name provided the petitioner

would be having a legal basis to relate to the subject matter of the said writ

petition. This is how the present writ petition has come up for consideration.

2. According to the petitioner, the impugned order passed by the Assistant

Commissioner is without jurisdiction and "coram non judice" as he was not even

a member of the statutory body to perform any quasi-judicial function. The

petitioner has relied upon various judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court

from time to time, detailed in the body of the petition, to seek quashment of the

impugned order.

3. Petitioner, who is present in person, after brief submissions has submitted

that he will be satisfied if the present petition is treated as a representation and

respondent is directed to decide the representation within a time frame.

4. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to

the respondent to treat the present petition as a representation and decide the same

after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner strictly in

accordance with law and in particular, having regard to the case law relied by the

petitioner by passing a speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the

date a copy of this order along with complete set of writ petition/representation,

annexures, relevant documents and the case law relied by the petitioner is made

available to him.

5. Disposed of accordingly.

(Rajesh Sekhri) Judge

Jammu 18.10.2023 Paramjeet