IN THE HIGH
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY
ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT
PETITION (L) NO 2925 OF 2011
WRIT PETITION NO…………….. OF 2011
Mumbai Taximen Sangathan …..
Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others … Respondents
INDEX
|
SR.NO
|
ANNEXURE
|
PARTICULARS
|
PAGE NO.
|
|
|
|
Proforma
|
|
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
|
|
|
|
Writ
Petition
|
|
|
|
|
Memo of
Appearance
|
|
|
|
|
Memorandum
of Addresses
|
|
|
|
|
List Of
Documents
|
|
|
|
ANNEXURE- P-1
COLLECTIVELY
|
Copy of the letters dated 11/7/2011, 14/7/2011 and 18/7/2011 sent
to the respondent no. 2 to 5 and respondent no. 13 by the present petitioner.
|
|
|
|
ANNEXURE- P-2
COLLECTIVELY
|
Copies of
the returns filed by the respondent no. 8 with the respondent no. 5.
|
|
|
|
ANNEXURE- P-3
COLLECTIVELY
|
Copies of
the returns filed by the respondent no. 9 with the respondent no. 5.
|
|
|
|
ANNEXURE- P-4
|
Extract of
the minute of meeting dated………
|
|
|
|
ANNEXURE- P-5
COLLECTIVELY
|
Copy of
the complaint, notice and the receipt of parking charges.
|
|
|
|
ANNEXURE- P-6
|
Copy of
the intimation to the respondent no. 2 given by the fleet taxi operators
dated 5/9/2011.
|
|
|
|
ANNEXURE- P-7
COLLECTIVELY
|
Copy of
the receipt dated 16/12/2011 issued by the fleet taxi operators along with
receipt of Rs. 50/- on the name of airport convenience charges and the said
charges is taking by the fleet taxi operators on the name of respondent no.
11.
|
|
|
|
ANNEXURE- P-8
COLLECTIVELY
|
The copies
of information available on the website the traffic police of Delhi,
Chandigarh , Hyderabad and other cities where they run the prepaid services
for the passengers and public at
large
|
|
|
|
ANNEXURE- P-9
COLLECTIVELY
|
Copies of
the media cutting Taxi/rickshaw booths are run by the Pune traffic police in
the State of Maharashtra itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Certificate
|
|
|
|
|
Affidavit in Support
|
|
|
|
|
Total Pages
|
|
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY
ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT
PETITION (L) NO…………. OF 2011
WRIT PETITION NO…………….. OF 2011
Mumbai Taximen Sangathan …..
Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others … Respondents
SYNOPSIS
|
Date
|
Events
|
|
1983
|
In the year 1983, the Respondent No. 5 had allotted the Pre-paid
Tax booth at the International Airport as Sahar to one trust i.e. Airport
Taximen Welfare Trust and the same is formed in the year July 1984. It is pertinent to that the Trustees of
this Trust are the life time members.
It is further pertinent to note that the Trust was working even after
the death of the Trustee for a long period, which is entirely legal.
|
|
2011
|
Since 1983 the respondent no. 12 is running the prepaid taxi
booth at the international airport. It is pertinent to note that the same
trustees are also running the respondent no. 6 & 7. It is further
pertinent to note that no democratic process has been adopted my respondent
no. 6, 7 & 12 and they are running the show as a owner of the above mentioned
respondents. It is further pertinent to note that respondent no. 1 to 5 was
failed to cross check the working and income of the respondent no. 12 till
date. It is further pertinent to note that respondent no. 6 & 7 are also
running the trade union activities on the place of prepaid booths. It is also
pertinent to note that the respondent no. 6 & 7 are giving the some help
to their own people, who are supporting them only.
|
|
2011
|
Suddenly the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 has called the meeting for
the allotment of the prepaid taxi stand at the various railway terminals and
the city of Mumbai. It is pertinent to
note that three railway terminals are under the jurisdiction of Respondent
No.5 and 2 other are under the jurisdiction of Respondent Nos.3 and 4. The Petitioner state that there is no such scheme was
formed by the Respondent Nos.1 or 2 till date to allot the prepaid taxi booth
in a fair manner. It is pertinent to
note that the petitioner had strictly objected of the processors to
Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to allot the prepaid taxi booth to the different taxis
trade union/ association/ Sangathan.
|
|
2011
|
The Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 had allotted the prepaid taxi booths
on the different railway terminals to
their favorite taxi trade unions, so that they can raise their voice against
corrupt practice done by their officers or any other offices.
|
|
2011
|
The petitioners state that the Respondent No. 10 is a private
party i.e. Crystal Integrated Private Limited and they are running the
prepaid taxi counter at the domestic airport in front of any trade unions or
associations. It is pertinent to note
that till date nobody is ready to provide the information that under what law
and authority a private company is running a prepaid taxi booth at the
domestic airport, Santacruz, Mumbai.
|
|
2011
|
The Respondent Nos. 1 to 5
had earlier allotted prepaid taxi booth to the Respondent No.12 at the
international airport and again that had allotted the prepaid taxi booth to
the Respondent Nos. 6 to 7, who are also a life time Trustees and others
Trustees are the members of the other Union of Respondent No.12. it is crystal clear how the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are indulgent in corrupt practice to allot
the private taxi both at the various airports and railway terminals.
|
|
2011
|
The respondent no. 8 has only 140 members in the year 2008, 130
members as per the written filed in the year 2009, 125 members in 2010 and
respondent no. 9 have only 215 members
in the year 2008, 498 member in 2009, 490 members in 2010.
|
|
2011
|
The respondent no. 10 is a private Limited company and he is
running the prepaid taxi/auto counter at the Domestic Airport, Santacruz (E),
and Mumbai. With the direction/association of respondent no. 11. It is
pertinent to note that there is no information provided by the respondent no.
1 to 5 that how and under what authority/law they are running prepaid counter
at the Domestic Airport. It is pertinent to note that the huge income are
kept or distributed by respondent no.
10 & 11 and they are not ready to disclose their accounts since
they operated.
|
|
2011
|
The respondent no. 4 & 13 had awarded the prepaid taxi
counter at the Domestic Airport to the respondent no. 11 with the condition
that the counter will be operated by the proposed trust and respondent no.
13, 4 & 11are the trustees of the said trust. It is pertinent to note
that the act of the respondent no. 4 & 13 are entirely illegal to form
the trust in the official capacity. It is further pertinent to note that
since July 2009 neither the trust is formed nor any account has been taken by
the respondent no. 4 & 13 till date.
|
|
2011
|
The respondent no. 11 is taking Rs. 50/- as a parking charges
through the Fleet Taxi Operators. It is pertinent to note that the present
petitioner has informed on 10/6/2011 to the respondent no. 2 about the
illegal charge of fleet taxi operators from the passengers thereafter the
respondent no. 4 issued the notice to all the fleet taxi operators on the
same day to immediate stop charging the parking fee.
|
|
2011
|
On the action of respondent no. 2 than the fleet taxi operators
gave the intimation to the respondent no. 2 that they had stopped taking
parking charges from 5th September 2011.
|
|
2011
|
Again respondent no. 11 find out the way with the conspiracy
with the fleet taxi operators, they again started extort / cheating with the
passenger at large after charging Rs. 50/- on the name of airport convenience
charges. It is pertinent to note that the said illegal Rs. 50/- is charging
now through fleet taxi operators.
|
|
2011
|
The Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 is not ready to fix the legal
responsibility or the safety of the passengers/ public at large. The
Respondent Nos. 12 had written the phone No. of Respondent No.13 i.e. Mumbai
Traffic Police in the event of any problem, but they are not ready to take
any responsibility of the passengers or public at large.
|
|
2011
|
There is a huge income in a million of rupees, but no authority
or Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 has any cross check on it. It is further pertinent
to note that the Respondent Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 are also running the trade
unions’ activities there.
|
|
2011
|
In most of the metro cities pre-paid taxi/Rickshaw booths are
run by the traffic police. The copies
of the traffic police of Delhi, Chandigarh, Hyderabad and other cities where
they run the prepaid services for the passengers and public at large. It is pertinent to note
that prepaid taxi/rickshaw booths are
run by the Pune traffic police in the State of Maharashtra itself.
|
|
2011
|
The respondent no. 1 to 5 and 13 are willfully and deliberately
avoid taking the safety and responsibilities of the passenger/ public at
large. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no. 3 to 5 and 13 are
indulged in the corrupt practice with the respondent no. 6 to 12 for their
personal gains / benefits.
|
|
2011
|
The respondent no. 1 to 5 and 13 are not ready to take the data
from the respondent no. 6 to 12 till
date regarding the numbers of passengers are benefited in the month or year
till date.
|
|
/12/2011
|
Hence this present writ petition filed before the court in the
interest of natural justice
|
Date:
/12/2011
Place: Mumbai
Petitioner
in Person
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY
ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT
PETITION (L) NO…………. OF 2011
WRIT PETITION NO…………….. OF 2011
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 act of the respondent no. 2 to 5 where by the prepaid taxi booth
has been allotted to respondent no. 6 to 9 are illegal, null, void, inoperative
and abinitio and is against the principal of natural justice
AND
In the
matter of without following the law
And
In the
matter of directing the respondent no. 2 to frame the scheme to allot the
prepaid taxi booth by the way of auction or tender process or any other mode by
giving equal and fair opportunity for participation in the process of allotment
of prepaid taxi booth
And
In the
matter of directions to the respondent no 13 to run/manage the prepaid taxi service
at the various railway terminus as well as at the airports.
And
In the
matter of extortion of money from the passenger at large at the Domestic
Airport by the fleet taxi operators on the name of parking / convenience
charges.
MUMBAI TAXIMEN SANGATHAN
Through its
General Secretary
………………………………Petitioner
VERSUS
1.
State of
Maharashtra
Through the
Department of Transport
2.
THE
TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER.
Its office
at Administrative Building,
4th
Floor, Government Colony,
Bandra East,
Mumbai
3.
The Regional Transport Office
Eastern
Region,
Wadala Truck
Terminus
Wadala
Mumbai.
4.
The Regional Transport Office
Western
Region,
Andheri
West,
Mumbai
400053
5.
The Regional Transport Office
Central
Region,
Tardeo,
Mumbai
6.
Mumbai Taxi
Union
Through its
General Secretary
Navjivan
Society, Mumbai Central,
Mumbai
7.
Mumbai Taxi
Association
Through its
General Secretary
Pathare
Bhavan, Kennedy Bridge,
Bombay
400007
8.
Mumbai
Chalak Malak Sena
Through its
General Secretary
38/42
Camatipura,
13 lane
junction,
Shankar
puppala Road,
Mumbai -
400008
9.
Bhartiya
Taxi Chalak Sangh
Through its
General Secretary
25, Ibrahim
Mansion, Dr. Ambedkar road
Parel,
Mumbai 400012
10.
Crystal Integrated
Services Private Limited
Through its Managing Director
C/o Terminal 1 at CSI Airport,
Santacruz, Mumbai
11.
Mumbai International
Airport Private Limited
Through its Managing Director
Terminal 1B, Domestic Airport,
Santacruz, Mumbai
12.
Airport
Taximen welfare Trust
Through its Chairman
1/108,
Navjivan Society, Dr. Bhadkambar Road,
Mumbai 400008
13.
The Joint Commissioner
of Police,
Traffic
Traffic Police Headquarters
Worli, Mumbai ……… RESPONDENTS
HUMBLE
PETITION OF THE
PETITIONER
ABOVENAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHWETH:
1. That the
Petitioner states that petitioner is the Trade Union registered Sangathan
formed for the welfare of the benefit of taximen at large and represented
through its General Secretary, Sanjay Khemka. The Respondent No. 1 is the State
of Maharashtra and Respondent No. 2 is the State Transport Commissioner,
Respondent no. 3, 4 & 5 are the
Regional Transport Office/Authority, Eastern, Western & Central region
respectively, Respondent No. 6 to 9 are the different trade unions of taxi
trade and allotted the prepaid taxi booth at the various railway terminus at
the city of Mumbai, respondent no. 10 is the private company, who run the
prepaid taxi counter at domestic airport on behalf of the
respondent no. 11 i.e. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. and respondent
no. 12 is the Airport Taximen Welfare
Trust which is also run by the respondent no. 6 & 7 and they are also run
the prepaid taxi counter at the International Airport and finally respondent
no. 13 is the Joint Commissioner of Police Traffic who are avoiding to run the
prepaid taxi/auto booths in the city of Mumbai.
2. That the Petitioner
is the Trade Union and Registered with the Registrar of Trade Unions,
Government of Maharashtra. The Petitioner is the resident of Maharashtra, as
such competent to invoke to extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High
Court.
3. That the Petitioners
state that the present petition is filed though Shri Sanjay Khemka, the General
Secretary of Mumbai Taximen Sangathan, who is will conversant with the facts of
the case and matter. The Petitioners
have the common cause of action and such one Petitioner has filed.
Brief facts
of the matter as under:-
a) That the
Petitioners state that in the year 1983, the Respondent No. 5 had allotted the
Pre-paid Tax booth at the International Airport as Sahar to one trust i.e. Airport
Taximen Welfare Trust and the same is formed in the year July 1984. It is pertinent to that the Trustees of this
Trust are the life time members. It is
further pertinent to note that the Trust was working even after the death of
the Trustee for a long period, which is entirely legal. The life time trustees
are as under:
I.
AL
Quodros
II.
Frederick
D’sa
III.
Jagtar Singh
IV.
Mahindra
Singh (expired) now his son Prem Singh is the trustee in place of his father Mahindra
Singh.
V.
M.H Baji
(expired) now Birrappa S. Naik is the trustee in place of M.H Baji.
b) That the
Petitioner states that since 1983 the respondent no. 12 is running the prepaid
taxi booth at the international airport. It is pertinent to note that the same
trustees are also running the respondent no. 6 & 7. It is further pertinent
to note that no democratic process has been adopted my respondent no. 6, 7
& 12 and they are running the show as a owner of the above mentioned
respondents. It is further pertinent to note that respondent no. 1 to 5 was
failed to cross check the working and income of the respondent no. 12 till
date. It is further pertinent to note that respondent no. 6 & 7 are also
running the trade union activities on the place of prepaid booths. It is also
pertinent to note that the respondent no. 6 & 7 are giving the some help to
their own people, who are supporting them only.
c) That the
Petitioner states that suddenly the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 has called the meeting
for the allotment of the prepaid taxi stand at the various railway terminals
and the city of Mumbai. It is pertinent
to note that three railway terminals are under the jurisdiction of Respondent No.5
and 2 other are under the jurisdiction of Respondent Nos.3 and 4. The Petitioner state that there is no such scheme was
formed by the Respondent Nos.1 or 2 till date to allot the prepaid taxi booth
in a fair manner. It is pertinent to
note that the petitioner had strictly objected of the processors to Respondent
Nos. 1 to 5 to allot the prepaid taxi booth to the different taxis trade union/
association/ Sangathan. Copy of the said
letter dated 11/7/2011; 14/7/2011 and 18/7/2011 are annexed hereto as Annexure “P-1”. collectively
d) That the
petitioners state that the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 had allotted the prepaid taxi
booths on the different railway terminals
to their favorite taxi trade unions, so that they can raise their
voice against corrupt practice done by
their officers or any other offices.
e) That the
petitioners state that the Respondent No. 10 is a private party i.e. Crystal
Integrated Private Limited and they are running the prepaid taxi counter at
the domestic airport in front of any trade unions or associations. It is pertinent to note that till date nobody
is ready to provide the information that under what law and authority a private
company is running a prepaid taxi booth at the domestic airport, Santacruz,
Mumbai.
f) That the
petitioners state that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 had earlier allotted prepaid taxi booth to
the Respondent No.12 at the international airport and again that had allotted
the prepaid taxi booth to the Respondent Nos. 6 to 7, who are also a life time
Trustees and others Trustees are the members of the other Union of Respondent
No.12. it is crystal clear how the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are indulgent in corrupt practice to allot
the private taxi both at the various airports and railway terminals.
g) That the
Petitioner states that respondent no. 8 has only 140 members in the year 2008,
130 members as per the written filed in the year 2009, 125 members in
2010. Copies of the written filed by the
respondent no. 8 as annexed as ANNEXURE P- 2 and respondent no. 9 have
only 215 members in the year 2008, 498
member in 2009, 490 members in 2010. Copies of the written filed by the
respondent no. 8 as annexed as ANNEXURE
P- 3.
h) That the
Petitioner states that the respondent no. 10 is a private Limited company and
he is running the prepaid taxi/auto counter at the Domestic Airport, Santacruz
(E), Mumbai. With the direction/association of respondent no. 11. It is
pertinent to note that there is no information provided by the respondent no. 1
to 5 that how and under what authority/law they are running prepaid counter at
the Domestic Airport. It is pertinent to note that the huge income are kept or
distributed by respondent no. 10 &
11 and they are not ready to disclose their accounts since they operated.
i) That the
petitioner states that the respondent no. 4 & 13 had awarded the prepaid
taxi counter at the Domestic Airport to the respondent no. 11 with the
condition that the counter will be operated by the proposed trust and
respondent no. 13, 4 & 11are the trustees of the said trust. Extract of the
minutes of meeting annexed as a ANNEXURE
P-4. It is pertinent to note that the act of the respondent no. 4 & 13
are entirely illegal to form the trust in the official capacity. It is further
pertinent to note that since July 2009 neither the trust is formed nor any
account has been taken by the respondent no. 4 & 13 till date.
j) That the
petitioner states that the respondent no. 11 is taking Rs. 50/- as a parking
charges through the Fleet Taxi Operators. It is pertinent to note that the
present petitioner has informed on 10/6/2011 to the respondent no. 2 about the
illegal charge of fleet taxi operators from the passengers thereafter the
respondent no. 4 issued the notice to all the fleet taxi operators on the same
day to immediate stop charging the parking fee. The Copies of the said letter,
notice and parking receipt are annexed as ANNEXURE
P-5 collectively.
k) That the
petitioner states that on the action of respondent no. 2 than the fleet taxi
operators gave the intimation to the respondent no. 2 that they had stopped
taking parking charges from 5th September 2011. The Copy of the said
intimation is annexed as ANNEXURE P-6.
l)
That the petitioner states that again respondent no. 11 find out
the way with the conspiracy with the fleet taxi operators, they again started
extort / cheating with the passenger at large after charging Rs. 50/- on the
name of airport convenience charges. It is pertinent to note that the said
illegal Rs. 50/- is charging now through fleet taxi operators the copy of the
receipt issued by the fleet taxi operator along with the receipt of Rs. 50/-
are annexed as ANNEXURE P-7 collectively.
m) That the
Petitioners state that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 is not ready to fix the legal
responsibility or the safety of the passengers/ public at large. The Respondent
Nos. 12 had written the phone No. of Respondent No.13 i.e. Mumbai Traffic
Police in the event of any problem, but they are not ready to take any
responsibility of the passengers or public at large.
n) The
Petitioners state that there is a huge income in a million of rupees, but no
authority or Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 has any cross check on it. It is further
pertinent to note that the Respondent Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 are also running
the trade unions’ activities there.
o) That the
petitioners state that in most of the metro cities pre-paid taxi/Rickshaw booths
are run by the traffic police. The copies
of the traffic police of Delhi, Chandigarh , Hyderabad and other cities where
they run the prepaid services for the passengers and public at large are annexed as ANNEXURE P-8 (collectively) It is pertinent to note that prepaid taxi/rickshaw booths are run by the Pune
traffic police in the State of Maharashtra itself. The copy of the media cuttings are annexed as
ANNEXURE P-9 (collectively)
p) That the
petitioner states that the respondent no. 1 to 5 and 13 are willfully and
deliberately avoid to take the safety and
responsibilities of the passenger/ public at large. It is pertinent to
note that the respondent no. 3 to 5 and 13 are indulged in the corrupt practice
with the respondent no. 6 to 12 for their personal gains / benefits.
q) That the
petitioner states that the respondent no. 1 to 5 and 13 are not ready to take
the data from the respondent no. 6 to 12
till date regarding the numbers of passengers are benefited in the month or
year till date.
r)
That the petitioners have left with no other alternative
remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of filing the present writ
petition under articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
s)
The statutory remedy of appeal/revision of quashing the
impugned orders is not available to the petitioners against the impugned order.
t)
The Petitioner
states and submits that he has not filed any other application and/or petition,
in this Hon’ble Court and/or any other court(s) of India, touching the subject
matter of present application.
u) The Petitioner craves leave of this Hon’ble Court
to add, alter, amend, delete and/or rescind any of the averments and/or
submissions mentioned hereinabove with the leave of this Hon’ble Court.
Under the
above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the Petitioners pray that –
a. This Hon’ble
Court may declare the allotment to all
the prepaid taxi booth at the different airports and railway terminals
are illegal, null, void and inoperative and abinitio ;
b. To direct
the Respondent No.2 to frame the scheme to allot the prepaid taxi booths by the
way of auction or tender process or any other mode by giving equal and fair
opportunity for participants in the process of allotment of prepaid taxi booth;
c. To direct
the respondent no. 10 & 11 to submit their account of the prepaid taxi
booths before this Hon’ble Court.
d. To direct
the respondents to submit the data regarding number of passengers per
month/year they served before the Hon’ble Court.
e. To direct
the respondent no. 11 to stop the parking / convenience charges till the pendency
of this writ petition.
f. To direct
respondent no. 2 take immediately necessary action against the fleet taxi
operators and respondent no. 11.
g. During the
pendency of this Writ Petition the operation of all the prepaid-taxi booths be
stay.
h. Ad-interim
pray clause (c) (d) be granted
i.
This Hon’ble Court may direct the Respondent No. 13 i.e. the Joint C.P. Traffic Police, Mumbai to
run this prepaid taxi / rickshaw booths in the interest and safety of the
public at large;
j.
Ad-interim relief in terms of
prayer (b) above;
k. Any such
other and further order, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, as per
the nature and circumstances of the case.
Place: Mumbai
Dated: 27-12-2011
Petitioner
IN PERSON
Verification
I,
Sanjay Khemka the petitioner above
named verified that the contents of the foregoing paragraphs are true and
correct to my knowledge and above mentioned paragraphs are 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.
Place:
Mumbai
Dated: 27-12-2011 Deponent
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY
ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT
PETITION (L) NO…………. OF 2011
WRIT PETITION NO…………….. OF 2011
Mumbai Taximen Sanghathan & another ….. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others … Respondents
CERTIFICATE
We, Sanjay
Khemka say that the above Petition is filed by the Petitioner challenging the
action of Respondents which is contravention of law as such as contemplated
under the amended rules 636 (1) (b) High Court Original Side Rules, hence the
above Petition is required to be entertained by the Division Bench of this
Honorable Court.
Petitioner
in Person
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY
ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT
PETITION (L) NO…………. OF 2011
WRIT PETITION NO…………….. OF 2011
Mumbai Taximen Sanghathan & another ….. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others … Respondents
AUTHORITIES TO BE CITED
-----------------------------------------
1. The Judgments refried to in the write
petition.
Petitioner in person
