Patna High Court
Birju Yadav vs The Bihar State Road Transport ... on 12 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18343 of 2021
======================================================
1. Birju Yadav, Son of Chandradeo Yadav, Resident of Mohalla, Durgapur
Colony, P.S. - Moffassil, District - Gaya.
2. Kundan Kumar, Son of Mithilesh Singh, Resident of Village - Repura, P.S. -
Sitamarhi, District - Nalanda.
3. Bhimsen Singh, Son of Late Bachan Singh, Resident of Village - Bajaul, P.S.
- Dumari, District - Gaya.
4. Dhiraj Kumar, Son of Bhimsen Singh, Resident of Bajaul, P.S. - Wazirganj,
District - Gaya.
5. Prabhat Kumar, Son of Naresh Singh, Resident of Village - Dakhingaon, P.S.
- Wazirganj, District - Gaya.
6. Arun Kumar, Son of Sheoshankar Singh, Resident of Fatehpur, P.S. -
Fatehpur, District - Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, through its Administrator,
Pariwahan Bhawan, Birchand Patel Patha, Patna.
2. The Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Pariwahan
Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna.
3. The Chief of Operation, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Birchand
Patel Patha, Patna.
4. The Chief of Administration, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation,
Birchand Patel Patha, Patna.
5. The Chief Accounts Officer, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation,
Birchand Patel Patha, Patna.
6. The Regional Manager, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Gaya
Division,
7. The Depot Superintendent, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Gaya
Depot.
8. The Depot Superintendent, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Nawada
Depot.
9. The Regional Manager, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Bankipur
Depot, Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18343 of 2021 dt.12-08-2022
10. The Depot Superintendent, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation,
Bankipur Depot, Patna.
11. Murari Manohar, Son of Bhagwan Das, Resident of Ram Nagar, P.S. -
Nawada, District - Nawada.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Prabhat Kumar Verma, AAG-3
Mr. Mukul Prasad Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
(The proceedings of the Court are being conducted by Hon'ble the Chief
Justice/Hon'ble Judges through Video Conferencing from their
residential offices/residences. Also the Advocates and the Staffs joined the
proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residences/offices.)
Date : 12-08-2022
Petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s):
"For issuance of an appropriate order
or direction for quashing the order dated 20-09-
2021 issued under Memo No. 2696 record No.
ST.CME(PPP) 05/2015 as contained in
annexure-6 passed by the Administrator,
whereby and where under on the purported
ground that Respondent No. 11 Murari Manohar
is ready to withdraw C.W.J.C. No. 7549 of 2017
which is still pending before this Hon'ble Court,
directed the Regional Manager, Gaya Division
to issue fresh agreement under PPP made with
Murari Manohar, Son of Bhagwan Das for his
56 vehicle for the route Nawada - Patna 28
huses, Nawada-Gaya 4 buses, Nawada-
Patna High Court CWJC No.18343 of 2021 dt.12-08-2022
Biharsharif 8 buses, Kauakole-Patna 1 Bus,
Harkhar-Patna 1 Bus, Aliganj-Patna 2 Buses,
Jamui-Biharsharif 1 Bus, Jamui-Gaya 1 Bus,
Gaya-Jamui 1 Bus, Patna-Aliganj 1 Bus,
Manudar-Patna 1 Bus, Kashichak-Patna 1 Bus,
Nawada-Gaya 5 Buses and directed the
Regional Manager, Gaya Division to issue fresh
agreement under PPP mode with Respondent
No. 11 after deposit of Rs.6,29,956.56 only on
the basis of 7% share of the Corporation without
issuing any tender and fixing the vacancy only
the route in question depriving the other
operators including the petitioners who are the
operators of the aforesaid route since 2010 and
also operating buses under PPP mode with the
Corporation since then and as such the action of
the Respondent Corporation is not sustainable in
law and this vitiated."
Shri Mukul Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for
respondent No. 1, states that, in principle, pursuant to
permission of In-house Committee, decision stands taken to
keep the impugned order dated 20th of September, 2021 under
suspension and not to be given effect to. Such decision was
taken by the 3 Member Committee on 9.5.2022.
Statement accepted and taken on record.
In view of the same, petition stands disposed of,
reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18343 of 2021 dt.12-08-2022
same and subsequent cause of action, should the need so arise
subsequently.
Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol, CJ)
( S. Kumar, J)
K.C.Jha/DKS
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 16.08.2022
Transmission Date
