IN THE
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY
ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L)NO. 871 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2012
Mumbai Taximen Sangathan …...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India
INDEX
|
Sr. No.
|
|
Particulars
|
Page Nos.
|
|
1.
|
|
Proforma
|
I-II
|
|
2.
|
|
Synopsis
|
A-
|
|
3.
|
|
Petition
|
1
|
|
4.
|
|
Memo of Appearance
|
|
|
5.
|
|
Memorandum of Address
|
|
|
6.
|
|
List of documents
|
|
|
7.
|
|
Annexure
|
|
|
8.
|
EXHIBIT -A”
|
Copy of Notification No.
RT 11012/2/97-MVL dated 13/11/1997 issued by the Ministry of Surface
Transport
to curtail the number of auto rickshaw and taxi permit in Mumbai city and other part of the State
of Maharashtra.
|
|
|
9.
|
EXHIBIT –“B”
|
Copy of Notification No. MVA
0996/CM-9/66/ Transport-2 issued by the Government of Maharashtra, Home
Department, Mantralya dated 26/11/1997 to
curtail the number of auto rickshaw and taxis in Mumbai city and other part
of the State of Maharashtra.
|
|
|
10.
|
EXHIBIT –“C”
|
Copy of the Fleet Taxi
Scheme 2006. introduced by the State of Maharashtra
|
|
|
11.
|
EXHIBIT -:D”
|
Copy of the call taxi
scheme 2010 introduced by the State of Maharashtra
|
|
|
12.
|
EXHIBIT –“E”
|
Copy of the Phone
Fleet Taxi Scheme 2010 introduced by the State of Maharashtra.
|
|
|
13
|
|
Affidavit in support
|
|
|
14
|
|
Certificate
|
|
|
|
|
Total Pages
|
|
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY
ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L)NO. OF 2012
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2012
Mumbai Taximen Sangathan …...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India
SYNOPSIS
|
Date
|
Events
|
|
1997
|
The Union of India had issued the Notification to fix the limit
of the taxi permits u/s 74 of the Motor Vehicle Act in the Mumbai City.
|
|
1997
|
The Government of Maharashtra through Home Department, Mantralya
had issued the notification as per Motor Vehicle Act,, 1988 (1988-89) clause
74 Para (3)
|
|
1997-2012
|
The Union of India and the State of Maharashtra were sleeping
after issuing the notification till date but thereafter they does not have
time to review their own notification.
|
|
1997-2012
|
On the other hand State of Maharashtra is issuing taxi permits
(T) continuously since 1997 to till date and more than 10,000 taxi permits
were issued by the RTO Eastern, Central and Western Region. It is pertinent
to note that approx 30,000 tourist taxi permits were issued by RTO Thane,
pen, Vashi Panvel.
|
|
1997-2012
|
90% of the tourist taxis are doing business in the limit of
Mumbai city / MCGM, particularly with the Call centre companies and airport.
It si pertinent to note that for the
tourist taxi permit the concerned RTOs need a letter from the societies or
premises for their parking and 98% forge and bogus parking certificates were
submitted to the concerned RTOs at the time of the registration of Tourist
taxi.
|
|
1997-2012
|
The State of Maharashtra had introduced various fleet taxi
schemes i.e. fleet taxi scheme 2006, call taxi scheme 2010 and phone fleet
taxi scheme 2010 and the Government of Maharashtra is busy to give the
existing / dead permits to the corporate world on the name of world class
service to be provided to the commuters.
|
|
1997-2012
|
Approx 53,000 meter taxi permits were issued by Government of
Maharashtra and now approx 20,000 permits had expired or out of operation due
to several reasons including the high handed and corrupt practice of the
RTO’s and also the illegal and high handed activities of the money lenders.
|
|
1997-2012
|
Now, the Government of Maharashtra is selling the meter taxi
permits through auction or tender process u/s 74 of the Motor Vehicle Act
which is against the law.
|
|
1997-2012
|
The Government of Maharashtra is not ready to review their own
notification to fix the limit of taxi permits u/s 74 of Motor Vehicle Act and
since 1997 the populations of Mumbai city is raised drastically and now the commuters
are facing problem and demand and supply are not balanced.
|
|
1997-2012
|
On the other hand Government of Maharashtra is also violating
the fundamental rights shrine in the constitution of India and busy in
regional politics. it is pertinent to
note that state is pass the resolution but commercial taxi
licence/badge/permit should be given to the persons who are the resident of
State of Maharashtra for minimum of 15 years.
|
|
1997-2012
|
As per the information of the petitioner that the Government of Maharashtra
had put the matter of the notification issued by Union of India for the
limitation of taxi permit before the cabinet committee but till date no
discussion has been done on this issue.
|
|
1997-2012
|
Petitioner is challenging the notification issued by the Union
of India through Transport Department and the State of Maharashtra through
its State Transport Authority/RTA to curtail the number of auto rickshaw and
taxi in Mumbai city, Thane, Pune, Nagpur, Solapur, Nashik and Aurangabad
city.
|
|
1997-2012
|
As
per section 74 (3)(a) The State Government shall, if so directed by the
Central Government, having regard to the number of vehicles, road conditions
and other relevant matters, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct a
State Transport Authority and a Regional Transport Authority to limit the
number of contract carriages generally or of any specified type, as may be
fixed and specified in the notification, operating on city routes in towns
with a population of not less than five lakhs.
|
|
1997-2012
|
As
per section 74 (3 )(b) Where the number of
contract carriages are fixed under clause (a), the Regional Transport
Authority shall, in considering an application for the grant of permit in
respect of any such contract carriage, have regard to the following matters,
namely:-
(i)
financial stability of the applicant;
(ii)
satisfactory performance as a contract carriage operator including payment of
tax if the applicant is or has been an operator of contract carriages; and
(iii)
such other matters as may be prescribed by the State Government:
Provided
that, other conditions being equal, preference shall be given to applications
for permits from-
(i)
the India Tourism Development Corporation;
(ii)
State Tourism Development Corporations;
(iii)
State Tourism Departments;
(iv)
State Transport Undertakings;
(v)
co-operative societies registered or deemed to have been registered under any
enactment for the time being in force;
(vi)
ex-servicemen
|
|
|
IT is injustice to the taximen / drivers, who are waiting for the taxi permit for the betterment of
their life but the State is busy to please the Corporate World and selling
the taxi permits through auctions which such conditions so that no common man
should able to take the permit from the State of Maharashtra
|
|
|
Therefore, the petitioner is challenging the Notifications
issued by the Union of India and The State of Maharashtra
|
|
26/3/2012
|
Hence this writ petition filed before this Hon’ble Court in the interest
of natural Justice.
|
Points to be argued
1. Whether the limit fixed
on the meter taxi permits/auto rickshaw permits u/s 74 of the Motor Vehicle Act
1988 are permanent or forever as per the Notifications No. RT 11012/2/97-MVL,
dated 13th November 1997 issued by Union of India and notification No. MVA
0996/CM-9/66/Para-2 dated 26th September 1997?
2. Whether the Government
of Maharashtra is responsible to maintain the demand and supply of the public
transport system?
3. Under what circumstances
the Union of India and the State of Maharashtra are failed to review their own
notification since 1997 till date
4. Whether the State of
Maharashtra is bound to issue fresh meter taxi permits to the Taximen,
Ex-servicemen, Societies and the weaker section of the society?
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26/03/2012
Petitioner in person
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY
ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L)NO. OF 2012
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2012
In
the matter of Articles 226 of the Constitution of India
AND
In
the matter of Section 74 of the Motor vehicle act 1988
AND
In
the matter of Notification No. RT 11012/2/97-MVL dated 13/11/1997 issued by the
Ministry of Surface Transport
AND
In
the matter of Notification No. MVA 0996/CM-9/66/ Transport-2 issued by the Government
of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralya dated 26/11/1997
AND
In
the matter of issue the new permits to the Taximen after making fair and
transparent policy
AND
In
the matter to make the policy regarding the issue of new permits
AND
In
the matter to make the fix policy regarding the renewal of permit and
replacement order
AND
In
the matter to keep the bio-metric record of the permit holders /taximen and to computerized
all records of the taxi permit, motor vehicle, profession tax, hypothecation
detail, taxi badge and driving licence of the Taximen.
AND
In
the matter to maintain the inward register by the RTOs to keep the record, when
the taximen / permit holders approach the concerned RTOs for the renewal of
permits / driving licence, passing the vehicle, replacement order etc
MUMBAI TAXIMEN SANGATHAN
Through
its General Secretary
…………….Petitioner-in-Person
VERSUS
1.
The
Union of India
Through
the Secretary
Ministry
of Surface Transport,
Transport
Bhawan,
1,
Parliament Street,
New
Delhi 110 001
2.
The State
of Maharashtra
Through
the Chairman
cum
Principal Secretary (Transport)
Mantralya,
Mumbai
3.
The
Transport Commissioner
Having its office at Administrative Building,
4th Floor, Government Colony,
Bandra East, Mumbai
4.
The Regional Transport Office,
Truck
Terminal
B-2,
3rd Floor,
Wadala,
Mumbai – 400 037
5.
The
Regional Transport Office,
Old
Body Guard Lane,
Tulsiwadi,
Tardeo,
Mumbai 400 034
6.
The
Regional Transport Office,
Western Region
Ambivli Village,
Opp. Manish Nagar,
Andheri West,
Mumbai
400 053
…RESPONDENTS
To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice
And The Other Pusine Hon’ble
Judges
Of the High Court of Bombay
The
petitioners submit as under:
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 petitioner states that petitioner no. 1
is a Trade Union formed by the Taximen under the name and style of Mumbai
Taximen Sangathan & petitioners 2 are the law student. The respondent no. 1
is the Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Surface Transport,
respondent no. 2 is the State of Maharashtra through its Chairman State
Transport Authority cum Principal Secretary Transport, respondent no. 3 is the
State Transport Commissioner, and Respondent no. 4 to
6 are the regional transport officers, Eastern, Western & central
respectively. 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 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 EXHIBIT-A
5.
That the present petition is filed through Sh.
Sanjay Khemka the Secretary of the Mumbai Taximen Sangathan who is well conversant with facts of
the case and matter. The copy of the resolution is annexed as EXHIBIT-B
6.
That the petitioners states that the Subject Matters of the Present Petition are
as under :
(a)
The respondent no. 1 i.e., the Union of India had
issued Notification No. RT 11012/2/97-MVL dated 13/11/1997 issued by the
Ministry of Surface Transport
(b)
The respondent no. 2 i.e., the State of
Maharashtra had issued Notification No. MVA 0996/CM-9/66/ Transport-2 issued by
the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralya dated 26/11/1997
(c)
The respondent no. 2 have to issue the new
permits to the Taximen after making fair and transparent policy
(d)
The respondent no. 2 have to make the policy
regarding the issue of new permits
(e)
The respondent no. 2 have to make the fix policy
regarding the renewal of permit and replacement order.
(f)
The respondent no. 4 to 6 have to keep the
bio-metric record of the permit holders /taximen and to computerized all
records of the taxi permit, motor vehicle, profession tax, hypothecation
detail, taxi badge and driving licence of the Taximen.
(g)
The respondent no. 4 to 6 to maintain the inward
register to keep the record, when the taximen / permit holders approach the
concerned RTOs for the renewal of permits / driving licence, passing the
vehicle, replacement order etc
12.
That the following questions of law point are
involved in the present writ petition for the kind consideration of this
Hon’ble Court:-
QUESTION OF LAW
i)
When the Hire Purchase Act, 1972 was passed by
the parliament then why and under what reasons or circumstances the Union of
India has failed to issue notification till date?
ii)
Whether the Hire Purchase Agreement is covering
only new vehicles and not those already purchased?
iii)
Whether grave and manifest injustice has been
done with the public at large for the non implementation of the hire purchase
act, 1972?
iv)
Whether the existing hire purchase agreements
are illegal, null and void because Hire Purchase Act, 1972 is not enforced?
v)
Whether the hire-purchase
agreements/hypothecation agreements are null and void in the light of the
non-implementation of the Hire-purchase Act, 1972 in respect of the old vehicle
13.
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 petitioners i.e. Mumbai Taximen Sangathan and
the Law Students
14.
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
15.
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).
16.
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
17.
That the petitioner
states that there is no caveat has been filed or no notice has been received of
lodging a caveat by the respondents /opposite party.
18.
The Petitioners submit that there is no
efficacious and effective remedy available under the law otherwise that the
remedy in Writ Jurisdiction.
19.
The Petitioner is paying the fixed court fee of
Rs.250/- for the purpose of this petition.
20.
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.
21.
That the petitioners are 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.
22.
The statutory remedy of appeal/revision of
quashing the impugned orders is not available to the petitioners against the
impugned order/notices.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that
under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to:-
(i)
Issue a writ, direction, or order to declare
that both the notifications issued by the respondent no. 1 & 2 be set aside
(ii)
This Hon’ble Court may please to direct the
respondent no. 2 to issue the new permits to the taximen / automen after making
the fair and transparent guidelines / policy regarding the issue of the permits
under section 74 of the Motor Vehicle Act
(iii)
That this Hon’ble Court may direct the
respondent no. 2 to 6 not to issue any permit or issue replacement order towards
any scheme of the State of Maharashtra till the pendency of this writ petition.
(iv)
Ad-interim relief clause (iii) be granted
(v)
To issue
any other appropriate writ, order, or direction which this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case;
(vi)
To dispense with the service of advance notice
upon the respondents;
(vii)
To dispense with the filing of the certified
copies of the Annexure.
(viii)
To accept the present writ petition with costs
in favor of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Place: Mumbai
Dated: 26.3.2012 PETITIONERS IN PERSON
Verification
I,
Sanjay Khemka, the petitioners above
named, Verified that the contents of the ongoing Paragraphs in the petition are
true and correct to our 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.
Place: Mumbai
Dated: 22.3.2012
Petitioner
in Person
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY
ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L)NO. OF 2012
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2012
Mumbai Taximen Sangathan
…...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India
MEMORENDUM
OF REGISTERED ADDRESS OF PETITIONERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MUMBAI TAXIMEN SANGATHAN
Petitioner in person
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY
ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L)NO. OF 2012
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2012
Mumbai Taximen Sangathan
…...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India
LIST OF DOCUMENTS ON WHICH PETITIONER WILL RELY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.
Copy of the Notification
No. RT 11012/2/97-MVL dated 13/11/1997 issued by the Ministry of Surface
Transport
2.
Copy of the Notification
No. MVA 0996/CM-9/66/ Transport-2 issued by the Government of Maharashtra, Home
Department, Mantralya dated 26/11/1997
3.
Copy of the Fleet Taxi Scheme 2006 of the
Government of Maharashtra
4.
Copy of the Call Taxi Scheme 2010 of the
Government of Maharashtra
5.
Copy of the Phone Fleet Taxi Scheme 2010 of the
Government of Maharashtra
Petitioner
in person
They will treat you with dignity and even help with your luggage. For more details about Cabs in Vijaywada.
ReplyDeleteThank You!!