IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY
ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Review Petition No 27 of 2012
in
in
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 17 OF 2012
Mumbai
Taximen Sangathan and others ………
Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra &
others …….. Respondents
INDEX
S.NO.
|
PARTICULARS
|
PAGE
NOS
|
1.
|
Proforma
|
A-D
|
2.
|
Synopsis
|
E-
|
3.
|
Petition
|
1-
|
4.
|
Memo of Appearance
|
|
5.
|
Memorandum of Address
|
|
6.
|
List of Documents
|
|
7.
|
Annexure
|
|
8.
|
Annexure P-1,
Copy of
the Trade certificate of the petitioner.
|
|
9
|
Annexure P-2,
Copy
of the Resolution passed by the petitioner
|
|
10
|
Affidavit in Support
|
|
11
|
Advocate Certificate
|
|
12
|
Affidavit as per rule of High
Court
|
|
Total pages
|
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY
ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Review Petition No 27 of 2012
in
Review Petition No 27 of 2012
in
PUBLIC
INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 17 OF 2012
Mumbai Taximen Sangathan and others ……… Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra &
others …….. Respondents
SYNOPSIS
Date
|
Particular
|
1st
July 1989
|
State of Maharashtra had constituted the State Transport
Authority and The MMRTA U/s. 68 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 vide As per
notification no. MVA. 0183/57(i)/TRA-2 No.
MVA. 0183/57(i)/TRA -2 and notification no. MVA. 0192/1553/CR-97/TRA-2
respectively
|
-----
|
Subject
Matter of the Present Petition:
The State Transport Authority: As per notification no. MVA.
0183/57(i)/TRA-2 No. MVA.
0183/57(i)/TRA -2 - In Exercise of the
powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(59 of 1988), in its application to the State of Maharashtra and in
supersession of all notifications issued in this behalf, the Government of
Maharashtra hereby constitutes, with effect from the 1st day of
July 1989, the State Transport Authority, comprising of the following
persons, to exercise and discharge the powers and functions specified in
sub-section (3) of the said Section 68, namely:-
(1)
Shri P. Subrahmanyam, Secretary to the
Government of Maharashtra, Industries, Energy and Labour
Department
(Energy) and Environment Department.
Chairman
(2)
Deputy the Inspector General of Police
(Traffic), Maharashtra State,
Bombay
Member
(3)
The Transport Commissioner, Maharashtra
State, Bombay.
Member
(4)
Dr. P.G. Patankar, Director, Central
Institute of Road Transport,
Pune.
Member
(5)
Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Patel, 4-A, Vikas
Centre 104, S.V. Road, Santacruz (West), Bombay- 400 054.
Member
The Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Transport Authority: As per
notification no. MVA. 0192/1553/CR-97/TRA-2
No. MVA 0192/1553/CR-97/TRA-2 – In
exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 68 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988). In its application to the State of
Maharashtra, and in supersession of all notifications issued in this behalf
the Government of Maharashtra, hereby constitutes, with effect from the date
of issue of this Notification the Regional Transport Authorities consisting
of the persons mentioned in column (2) of the Schedule hereto appended, for
the regions as shown opposite thereto, in columns (3) and (4) of the said
Schedule, to exercise and discharge throughout the said regions, the powers
and functions conferred upon them by or under Chapter V of the said Act,
namely :-gazette shall
be
|
Earlier the respondent no.2 had two expert/ non-official members
in the respondent no.2 body but now there are no non-official members, the
reason best known to the State.
|
|
Respondent no.2 had only 4 members and all are bureaucrat’s i.e.
i.
The Principal Secretary, Transport is the
Chairman of the STA
ii.
The Addl. Transport Commissioner is the
Secretary of the STA
iii.
The Transport Commissioner is the member of
the STA
iv.
The Addl. Director General of Police –
Traffic is the member of STA.
|
|
The present Secretary of the respondent
no.2 Mr. Shirish Thakur is holding this
position in the STA for the last more than 7 years and now he is acting as a
dictator. As per Section 60 (6) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 clear that the
Joint Transport Commissioner or the officer appointed by the Government by
the notification in the official gazette shall be the secretary of the State
Transport Authority
|
|
There is no guideline to
prepare the agenda of the respondent no.2 and 3 hence the Secretaries are preparing the agenda for their own
benefit or favoring their associates. It is pertinent to note that neither
the dates of the meeting nor the agenda of the respondent no.2 and 3 are made public.
|
|
When the respondent
no.2 and 3 approved any agenda or scheme then after
no time, they are amended the same on the request of the interested parties
without looking through the interest of the State. It is pertinent to note
that the respondent no. 2 and 3 amended the fleet taxi scheme 2006 for the
interest of private fleet taxi operators.
|
|
whenever the interested parties
want to pass any resolution in their favor then the Secretary of the respondent
no.2 and 3 put their proposal or request in the
agenda of the meetings. It is
pertinent to note that if any other common person or the Trade Union wants or
put their grievances/proposals in the
respondent no. 2 and 3 meeting then the Secretaries of the respondent no. 2
and 3 was neglected the same intentionally and deliberately for their own
interest.
|
|
respondent no. 2 and 3 has not
published / made public the agenda of their forthcoming meeting nor are they
inviting any suggestions from anyone before preparing the agenda of the
meeting.
|
|
after the approval of the
agenda by the respondent no. 2 and 3, they are not ready to disclose or make
public in regard of the approval of the agenda.
|
|
it is very dangerous that four
bureaucrats are misusing the power of the respondent no. 2 and 3. It is
pertinent to note that out of four three officials are from the Transport
department.
|
|
respondent no. 2 and 3 are
organizing the meeting as per their convenience and also approve the items of
the agenda of their own choice and rest on the agenda of the meeting are
forwarded to the next meeting.
|
|
officers of the RTO and
Transport Commissioner are making a fool of the public on the name of the
agenda/meetings of the respondent no. 2 and 3 stating that they are going to
put the issue of the aggrieved person in the next meeting but they never put
the issue of the aggrieved person in the agenda itself.
|
|
respondent no. 2 attempts to
please the influential people and they will get the approval from the
respondent no. 2 through circulation amongst its members without any of the
respondent no. 2 meeting. It is pertinent to note that earlier the respondent
no. 2 had increased fleet taxi rates overnight without any meeting when the
drivers of the fleet taxi operators went on strike.
|
|
Respondent no. 2 and 3 are not disclosing the agenda and the
date of the meetings and they passed resolution for the influential persons
and making amendments for their own convenience without going through the
merits
|
|
Present Secretary of the respondent no.2 has become the more
powerful person in the State Transport Department and he put the agenda of
their own convenience and to please his associates and political bosses for
the last seven years.
|
|
Respondent no. 2 has also taken the harsh decisions to increase
the fair without any meeting and by circulation only for the one fleet taxi
operator overnight. It is pertinent to note that first the respondent no. 2
introduced/ passed the various schemes but within no time they are doing the
amendments without any delay just to please the beneficiary of the schemes.
|
|
present petition is being filed
by way of public Interest litigation and the petitioner does not/do have any
personal interest in the matter.
|
|
petition is being filed in the interest
of the Taximen as well as public at large. Hence this present petition is
filed by the present petitioner i.e. Mumbai Taximen Sangathan.
|
|
Entire litigation costs, including the other cost/ fee and other
charges are being borne by the petitioner. The PAN No. of the petitioner is AQMPK6798B.
|
|
Petitioner has understood that
in the course of hearing of this petition the Court may require any security
to be furnished towards costs or any other charges and the petitioner shall
have to comply with such requirements.
|
|
PETITIONER got the information
through the office of the respondent no. 2 and 3 including the office of the
Transport Commissioner Government of Maharashtra under the RTI Act. 2005
|
|
Declare the source of
information of the facts pleaded in the petition and as to whether the
petitioner/petitioners has/have verified the facts personally, if yes, in
what manner?
|
|
Petitioner had made several
representations before the Authorities but no reply has been given by such
authorities, the reasons best known to them.
|
|
There is no delay, for filing
the present petition.
|
|
the respondent no. 1 to appoint
the secretary of the respondent no.2 as per the Section 60
(6) of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicle Rule 1989 or appoint the Joint Transport
Commissioner or any other officer other than the present Secretary of the respondent no. 2. AND the present Secretary of respondent no.2
for the last about seven years continuously.
|
|
Petitioners have no personal and or private interest and the
present Petition is been filed by them in the true interest for the benefits
and welfare of the group of the society who are into the similar kind of
situation as the Petitioner is at present.
|
|
there is no control on the Respondent no. 2 and 3
because the secretary of the respondent no. 2 are holding this
position for the last more than 7 years and 3 officers from the transport
department and one from the traffic police.
It is pertinent to note that no non-official/ expert members are
the part of the respondent no. 2 and 3 for the last ten years and more and
all the resolutions passed by the respondent no. 2 and 3 need to be revised
by the full Coram of the respondent no. 2 and 3.
It is further pertinent to note that petitioners are shocked and
surprised when the petitioners come to know that non- official members had
appointed in all the districts regional transport authority but not in the
respondent no. 2 and 3 i.e. in the
MMRTA
|
|
15-02-2012
|
Hence this public interest litigation has been filed before this
Hon’ble court
|
ACTS/RULES
REFERRED TO:
1)
Constitution
Of India
2)
Motor
Vehicle Act, 1888
JUDICAL AUTHORITIES CITED
At
the time of Argument
POINTS TO BE URGED
1) Whether it’s
legal that no unofficial member in the STA- State Transport Authority and the
MMTRA – Mumbai Metropolitan Transport Regional Authority, Central, Western, and
Eastern meetings for the last ten years and more as per the Notification number
MVA. 0183/57(i)/TRA-2 dated 1st July 1989?
2) Whether all
the resolutions passed by the STA- State Transport Authority and the MMTRA –
Mumbai Metropolitan Transport Regional Authority, Central, Western, and Eastern
meetings for the last ten years and more are illegal and to be declared null
and void?
3) Whether the
terms of appointment of the Secretary of the STA- State Transport Authority is
illegal as per the provision of section
96(2) (i), when the Secretary of the STA- State Transport Authority is holding
this position for last seven years and more?
4) Whether the
STA- State Transport Authority and the MMTRA – Mumbai Metropolitan Transport
Regional Authority, Central, Western, and Eastern have the discretionary powers
to put any issue or matter in the agenda of the their meetings, without getting
the opinions from the experts or the public at large?
5) Whether the
agenda of the STA- State Transport Authority and the MMTRA – Mumbai
Metropolitan Transport Regional Authority, Central, Western, and Eastern to be
public or published in the media or put on the official website of the
transport department for their opinion before taking the decision in the
meetings?
Petitioner
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY
ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Review Petition No 27 of 2012
in
in
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 17 OF 2012
In the
matter of Articles 226 of the Constitution of India for writ of Certiorari and
writ of Mandamus
And
In the
matter of the functions of the State Transport Authority and Mumbai
Metropolitan Regional Transport Authority
And
In the
matter of the Agenda of the State Transport Authority and Mumbai Metropolitan
Regional Transport Authority
And
In the
matter of the dates of the meetings of the State Transport Authority and Mumbai
Metropolitan Regional Transport Authority
And
In the
matter of the resolutions of the State Transport Authority and Mumbai
Metropolitan Regional Transport Authority
And
In the
Matter of publish the dates of meetings and agendas of the State Transport
Authority and Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Transport Authority in the leading
news papers / official website of the State Government or the State Transport
Department and the Public Gazette
And
In the
matter of fix the tenure of the Secretary of the State Transport Authority
And
In the
matter of the agenda and resolution passed by the State Transport Authority and
Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Transport Authority through circulation among its
members
And
In the
matter of to frame guidelines to prepare the agenda of the State Transport
Authority and Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Transport Authority
And
In the
matter of the non official members/ Independent public representations in the
State Transport Authority and Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Transport Authority
And
In the
matter of Transportation and traffic expert representation in the State
Transport Authority and Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Transport Authority other
than the Government officials
And
In the
matter of minimum six meetings in the year of the State Transport Authority and
minimum twelve meetings of the Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Transport Authority
1.
MUMBAI
TAXIMEN SANGATHAN
Through its
General Secretary
……………………………Petitioners
VERSUS
1.
State of
Maharashtra
Through Public
Prosecutor,
Original
Side,
PWD
Building,
High Court
Mumbai
2. The Chairman,
State Transport Authority
Cum Principal
Secretary
Transport
Government
of Maharashtra,
Mantralya,
Mumbai
3. The Chairman,
Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Transport
Authority
Cum Principal
Secretary
Transport
Government
of Maharashtra,
Mantralya,
Mumbai
……… RESPONDENTS
HUMBLE
PETITION OF THE
PETITIONER
ABOVENAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHWETH:
THE HON’BLE
CHIEF JUSTICE AND
THE HON’BLE PUISNE JUDGES OF
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
THE
HUMBLE PETITION OF THE
PETITIONERS
ABOVE NAMED
MOST
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1.
The Petitioners submit that the cause of action
for filing this public interest litigation petition has arisen in Mumbai and
this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to try and entertain this petition.
2.
The Petitioner states that he has thoroughly
studied and researched on this on the subject matter of present petition for
the last five years.
3.
That the petitioners state that, petitioner no.
1 is a Trade Union formed by the Taximen under the name and style of Mumbai
Taximen Sangathan & petitioners 2 to 4 are law students. The respondent no.
1 is the State of Maharashtra, respondent no. 2and 3 are the chairman of the
State Transport Authority and the MMRTA. The petitioners are residents of
Mumbai, Maharashtra and are running the trade union and rest others are law
students and residents of Mumbai, and as such are competent to invoke the extra
– ordinary jurisdiction Hon’ble court.
4.
That the petitioner no.1 is the trade union and
registered with registrar of trade union on the name and style of Mumbai
Taximen Sangathan. The petitioner is a resident of Maharashtra and is working
for the welfare of taximen in Mumbai and Maharashtra, and as such is competent
to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court. The copy of
the trade certificate is annexed as Annexure
P-1
5.
That the present petition is filed through Sh.
Sanjay Khemka the Secretary of the Mumbai Taximen Sangathan and petitioner no. 2 to 4 are law students and
they are appearing in person, who are well conversant with facts
of the case and matter. The copy of the resolution passed by the petitioner no.
1 is annexed as Annexure P-2
6.
That the petitioner states that he is the
General Secretary of the Mumbai Taximen Sangathan and the Chief Executive
Officer of the Tristars Alliance Group. It is pertinent to note that earlier
the petitioner was the Chief Executive Officer of the Asian Sky Shop Limited.
The details of the office bearers of the present petitioner is as under:
Mr.
Bhupendra Surani – President
Mr.
Shiv Adhar Yadav – Vice President
Mr.
Sanjay Khemka – General Secretary
Mr.
Kanhaiya Singh – Secretary
Mr.
Hemant Khemka – Treasurer
7.
That the petitioners states that the petitioners
or any of the petitioners when there are more then one, is/are or has been
involved in any other civil, revenue, criminal litigation in any, capacity
before any Court or Tribunal and if so, complete details of such litigation
including the subject matter thereof.
Subject
Matter of the Present Petition:
(a)
The State Transport Authority: As per notification no. MVA.
0183/57(i)/TRA-2 No. MVA. 0183/57(i)/TRA
-2 - In Exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), in
its application to the State of Maharashtra and in supersession of all
notifications issued in this behalf, the Government of Maharashtra hereby constitutes,
with effect from the 1st day of July 1989, the State Transport
Authority, comprising of the following persons, to exercise and discharge the
powers and functions specified in sub-section (3) of the said Section 68,
namely:-
(6)
Shri P. Subrahmanyam, Secretary to the Govern- Chairman
Ment of
Maharashtra, Industries, Energy and Labour
Department (Energy)
and Environment Department.
(7)
Deputy the Inspector General of Police (Traffic), Member
Maharashtra
State, Bombay.
(8)
The Transport Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Member
Bombay.
(9)
Dr. P.G. Patankar, Director, Central Institute of Member
Road
Transport, Pune.
(10) Shri Mukesh
Rasiklal Patel, 4-A, Vikas Centre Member
104, S.V.
Road, Santacruz (West), Bombay- 400 054.
(b)
The Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Transport Authority: As per
notification no. MVA. 0192/1553/CR-97/TRA-2
No. MVA
0192/1553/CR-97/TRA-2 – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section
68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988). In its application to the
State of Maharashtra, and in supersession of all notifications issued in this
behalf the Government of Maharashtra, hereby constitutes, with effect from the
date of issue of this Notification the Regional Transport Authorities
consisting of the persons mentioned in column (2) of the Schedule hereto
appended, for the regions as shown opposite thereto, in columns (3) and (4) of
the said Schedule, to exercise and discharge throughout the said regions, the
powers and functions conferred upon them by or under Chapter V of the said Act,
namely :-gazette shall be
8.
That the petitioners state that, petitioner or any of the petitioners
when there are more then one, is or has been involved in any other civil,
revenue, criminal litigation in any, capacity before any Court or Tribunal and
if so, complete details of such litigation including the subject matter thereof
9.
That the petitioners state that, earlier the respondent no.2 had
two expert/ non-official members in the respondent no.2 body but now there are
no non-official members, the reason best known to the State.
10.
That the petitioners state that, respondent no.2 had only 4
members and all are bureaucrat’s i.e.
i.
The Principal Secretary, Transport is the Chairman of the STA
ii.
The Addl. Transport Commissioner is the Secretary of the STA
iii.
The Transport Commissioner is the member of the STA
iv.
The Addl. Director General of Police – Traffic is the member of
STA.
11.
That the petitioners state that, the
present Secretary of the respondent no.2 Mr. Shirish Thakur is holding
this position in the STA for the last more than 7 years and now he is acting as
a dictator. As per Section 60 (6) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 clear that the Joint
Transport Commissioner or the officer appointed by the Government by the
notification in the official gazette shall be the secretary of the State
Transport Authority
12.
That the petitioners state that,
there is no guideline to prepare the agenda of the respondent
no.2 and 3 hence the Secretaries are preparing the
agenda for their own benefit or favoring their associates. It is pertinent to
note that neither the dates of the meeting nor the agenda of the respondent
no.2 and 3 are made public.
13.
That the petitioners state that,
when the respondent
no.2 and 3 approved any agenda or scheme then after no
time, they are amended the same on the request of the interested parties
without looking through the interest of the State. It is pertinent to note that
the respondent no. 2 and 3 amended the fleet taxi scheme 2006 for the interest
of private fleet taxi operators.
14.
That the petitioners state that,
whenever the interested parties want to pass any resolution in their favor then
the Secretary of the respondent no.2 and 3 put their
proposal or request in the agenda of the meetings. It is pertinent to note that if any other
common person or the Trade Union wants or put their grievances/proposals in the respondent no. 2 and 3 meeting then the
Secretaries of the respondent no. 2 and 3 was neglected the same intentionally
and deliberately for their own interest.
15.
That the petitioners state that,
the respondent no. 2 and 3 has not published / made public the agenda of their
forthcoming meeting nor are they inviting any suggestions from anyone before
preparing the agenda of the meeting.
16.
That the petitioners state that,
after the approval of the agenda by the respondent no. 2 and 3, they are not
ready to disclose or make public in regard of the approval of the agenda.
17.
That the petitioners state that,
it is very dangerous that four bureaucrats are misusing the power of the
respondent no. 2 and 3. It is pertinent to note that out of four three
officials are from the Transport department.
18.
That the petitioners state that, the
respondent no. 2 and 3 are organizing the meeting as per their convenience and
also approve the items of the agenda of their own choice and rest on the agenda
of the meeting are forwarded to the next meeting.
19.
That the petitioners state that,
the officers of the RTO and Transport Commissioner are making a fool of the
public on the name of the agenda/meetings of the respondent no. 2 and 3 stating
that they are going to put the issue of the aggrieved person in the next
meeting but they never put the issue of the aggrieved person in the agenda
itself.
20.
That the petitioners state that,
the respondent no. 2 attempts to please the influential people and they will
get the approval from the respondent no. 2 through circulation amongst its
members without any of the respondent no. 2 meeting. It is pertinent to note
that earlier the respondent no. 2 had increased fleet taxi rates overnight
without any meeting when the drivers of the fleet taxi operators went on
strike.
21.
That the present petition is being filed by
way of public Interest litigation and the petitioner does not/do have any personal
interest in the matter.
22.
The petition is being filed in
the interest of the Taximen as well as public at large. Hence this present
petition is filed by the present petitioner i.e. Mumbai Taximen Sangathan.
23.
That the entire litigation costs,
including the other cost/ fee and other charges are being borne by the
petitioner. The PAN No. of the petitioner is AQMPK6798B.
24.
The Petitioner has not filed any other petition in this Hon’ble
Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India wherein the impugned actions are
subject matter of challenge.
25.
That a thorough research has been conducted
in the matter raised through the petition (all the relevant material in respect
of such research shall be annexed with the petition).
26.
That to the best of the
petitioner(s) knowledge and research, the issue raised was not dealt with or
decided and that a similar or identical petition was not filed earlier by
him/it
27.
That the petitioner has understood
that in the course of hearing of this petition the Court may require any
security to be furnished towards costs or any other charges and the petitioner
shall have to comply with such requirements.
28.
That the petitioner states that
he got the information through the office of the respondent no. 2 and 3 including
the office of the Transport Commissioner Government of Maharashtra under the
RTI Act. 2005
29.
Declare the source of information
of the facts pleaded in the petition and as to whether the
petitioner/petitioners has/have verified the facts personally, if yes, in what
manner?
30.
That the petitioner states that
the petitioner had made several representations before the Authorities but no
reply has been given by such authorities, the reasons best known to them.
31.
That the petitioners states that
there is no delay, for filing the present petition.
32.
This Hon’ble Court may please to
direct the respondent no. 1 to appoint the secretary of the respondent no.2 as
per the Section 60
(6) of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicle Rule 1989 or appoint the Joint Transport
Commissioner or any other officer other than the present Secretary of the
respondent no. 2. That the petitioner
states that the present Secretary of respondent no.2 for the last about seven
years continuously.
33.
That the petitioner states that,
there is no caveat been filed or no notice been received of lodging a caveat by
the respondents /opposite party.
34.
The Petitioners state that, they have no personal and or private
interest and the present Petition is been filed by them in the true interest
for the benefits and welfare of the group of the society who are into the
similar kind of situation as the Petitioner is at present.
35.
The Petitioners submit that, there is none an efficacious and
effective a remedy as available under the law otherwise than the remedy in Writ
Jurisdiction.
36.
The Petitioner is paying fixed court fee of Rs. 1000/- for the
purpose of this petition.
37.
The Petitioner shall rely upon documents, a list whereof is
annexed hereto and also the documents to which reference has been made in this
petition.
38.
The petitioners craves
leave off this Hon’ble Court ot add, amend, alter, delete and/or rescind any of
the averments and/or submissions made hereinabove with the leave of this Hon’ble Court.
The Petitioner therefore prays:-
a)
This Hon’ble Court may declare
all the resolutions passed by the respondent no. 2 and 3 without completed the
Coram of the respondent no. 2 and 3.
b)
This Hon’ble Court may pleased to
direct the respondent no. 1 to appoint the expert/ non-official member of the
respondent no. 2 and 3
c)
This Hon’ble Court may pleased to
direct the respondent no. 2 and 3 to frame the guidelines to prepare the agenda
of the meetings of the respondent no. 2 and 3
d)
This Hon’ble Court may pleased to
direct the respondent no. 2 and 3 to publish the agenda in the media or put on
the official website of the State Transport Department to get the opinion of
the public at large.
e)
This Hon’ble Court may pleased to
direct the respondent no. 2 to have minimum six meetings in the year and the
respondent no. 3 to have minimum 12 meetings in the year
f)
This Hon’ble Court may please to
direct the respondent no. 1 to appoint the secretary of the respondent no.2 as per the Section 60 (6) of the Maharashtra Motor
Vehicle Rule 1989 or appoint the Joint Transport Commissioner or any other
officer other than the present Secretary of the respondent
no.2
g)
The Interim relief clause (f) be granted till the pendency of this
petition in the interest of natural justice.
h)
Any other order or direction deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble
Court in the interest of natural justice.
Place: Mumbai
Dated this 15th
day of February 2012
Petitioners in Person
VERIFICATION
We, Sanjay Khemka, Aarti Cindala, Arka Navle
and Madhavi Garde adult Indian Inhabitant are the Petitioners above named having office
at Andheri-East, Mumbai – 400 093902, Solitaire Corporate Park, Chakala,
Andheri – Ghatkopar Link Road, do hereby on solemn affirm that the
contents of the foregoing paragraphs are
true correct to my knowledge and is believed to be true and correct as per
legal information received and believed to be correct. No part of it is
incorrect and false and nothing material fact has been kept concealed there
from.
Solemnly declared at Mumbai
Aforesaid dated this, the
Deponents
Day of 15th February 2012 Before
me
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY
ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC
INTEREST LITIGATION NO 17 OF 2012
Mumbai
Taximen Sangathan and others ………
Petitioners
Versus
The State of
Maharashtra & others ……..
Respondents
LIST OF DOCUMENTS ON WICH PETITIONER WILL RELY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Copy of
the Trade certificate.
2. Copy of
the Resolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment