Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5022 of 2006
PETITIONER:
Pune Taximen’s Consumer Co-operative Society Ltd.
RESPONDENT:
The Regional Transport Authority,Bombay & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/11/2006
BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.21367 of 2004)
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment in
writ petition No. 2207 of 2004 decided on 28.9.2004 by a
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. Respondent No.5,
a Society registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (in
short the ’Act’), and its members filed the writ petition for a
direction to the respondents to implement recommendations
made by the sub-committee appointed by Regional Transport
Authority (in short the ’RTA’) (Respondent No.1). They also
prayed that the respondents be directed to implement the
Resolution dated 4.2.2004 passed in a meeting under the
Chairmanship of respondent No.1-RTA. The High Court noted
the undertaking given by the Pune Taximen’s Consumer Co-
operative Society Ltd. (in short the ’Pune Society’), the present
appellant to shift Gala Nos.P-49 to P-52 within a period of two
weeks. It directed the RTA to ensure that Resolution No.15
dated 4.2.2004 is fully implemented. Direction was also given
to ensure that the recommendation of the sub-committee was
implemented fully.
Learned counsel appearing for the Pune Society-present
appellant had submitted before the High Court that their
appeal was pending before the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal (in short the ’STAT’).
By the impugned order, the High Court directed the STAT
to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably
within three months from the date of order. It was stated that
the shifting of appellant-Pune Society (Respondent No. 5
before the High Court) to the Gala would be without prejudice
to the rights and contentions in the appeal pending before the
STAT.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
High Court was totally confused about the issues and the
reliefs sought for. The appeal then pending before STAT had
nothing to do with the issues involved. Though the Brihan
Mumbai Mahanagar Palika (in short ’Mahanagar Palika’) was a
party before the High Court, it is not clear as to whether the
Gala nos. P-49 to P-52 have been handed over. The so-called
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
concession is without instruction and even otherwise the writ
petition could not have been disposed of in the manner done.
Even the basic grievances and respective stand have not been
discussed.
It appears that the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-Pune Society stated by way of an undertaking before
the High Court that shifting to Gala P-49 to P-52 shall be done
within a period of two weeks from the date of order.
On 25.10.2004 on the basis of the statement made by
learned counsel appearing for the appellant, it was observed
that the question as to what would happen when Gala was
made available to the appellant shall be considered in this
appeal. The statement of respondent No.5 (present appellant)
that shifting shall be done to Gala P-49 to P-52 within a period
of two weeks was really of not much relevance.
The High Court’s order seems to be totally confusing.
The undertaking by learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.5 to act within a particular time was really, as noted above,
has no relevance The Gala Nos. P-49 to P-52 were, according
to appellant, to be given by the Brihan Mumbai Municipal
Corporation. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant
that Gala Nos.14 to 18 and A2 were to be first allotted by the
Mahanagar Palika. The members of the appellant-society had
not been given the galas though according to it all conditions
were fulfilled.
Learned counsel for the State supported the order of the
High Court stating that the appellant had been given
necessary protection.
It is to be further noted that the dispute before the STAT
was totally unconnected with the subject matter of dispute in
the writ petition. As the High Court’s order is totally confusing
and even does not indicate any reason for arriving at various
conclusions, it would be appropriate for the High Court to re-
hear the matter. It shall consider the respective stand of the
parties and pass necessary orders.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.