IN THE HIGH
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI
ORDINARY
ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDITION
WRIT PETITION (L)
NO. ____________OF 2013
WRIT PETITION NO. ___________OF 2013
In the matter of
Article 226 of the constitution of the India
AND
In the matter of
Motor vehicle Act 1989
AND
In the matter of
the question of law whether the meter taxi permit issued under section 74 of
the Motor Vehicle act is saleable or auction able?
AND
In the matter
question of law whether the Tourist taxi permit vehicles are permissible to ply
as meter taxi in the MMRTA Limit?
AND
In the matter of
question of law whether only meter taxi vehicles are responsible for the
traffic congestion not by the tourist taxi vehicles in Mumbai
Mumbai Taximen Sangathan )
Through
Its General Secretary )
Sanjay
Khemka, Age about 53 years )
Indian
Habitant, DOB: 03/03/1960 )
PAN
No.: )
Office
at: 514, MIDAS, Sahar Plaza, )
AK
Road, Andheri East, )
Mumbai
- 400064 )
Email:
cmd@veritru.in ) …….Petitioner
VERSUS
1.)
The
Union of India )
Through its Secretary )
Ministry of Transport )
Ministry of Road Transport &
Highways )
Transport Bhavan )
1, Parliament Street )
New Delhi-110001 )
2.)
The
Transport Commissioner, )
Maharashtra
State
)
4th
Floor, Administrative Building, )
Bandra
East, Mumbai )
3.) The State of Maharashtra )
Through Government Pleader )
PWD Building, )
High Court of Bombay, )
Mumbai
) ……
Respondents
To,
THE
HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF
BOMBAY
HIGH COURT AND
THE
HON’BLE PUISNE JUDGES OF THE
HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
THE HON’BLE PETITION OF
THE
PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED
MAY
IT PLEASE YOUR WORSHIP:
1.) The
Petitioner by filing this present writ petition in this Hon’ble court to invoke
the inherent powers vested with the Hon’ble Court under article 226 of the
Constitution of India with Motor Vehicle Act seeking the urgent reliefs. The
Petitioner is registered taxi trade Sangathan under the trade union act &
working in the interest of Taximen at large, public & in the country,
having office at 514, MIDAS, Sahar Plaza, Andheri East, Mumbai 400059 &
filing this present petition through its General Secretary Sanjay Khemka in the
interest of Taximen at large. The copies
of the trade Union Certificate & the resolution of the Sangathan to file
this present petition before this Hon’ble court are annex as EXHIBIT-A & B.
2.) That
the petitioner states that the respondent no 1 is the Union of India &
representing through its Secretary, Ministry of
Road Transport & highways, Respondent
no 2 is the state transport department & respondent no 3 is the state of Maharashtra through the
Government Pleader.
3.) That
the petitioner states that the Respondent No. 2 is the authority to issue the
meter Taxi permit under section 74 of the motor vehicle act. The section 74 of
the motor vehicle act is reproduce as under:
Section 74 in the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988
74.
Grant of contract carriage permit.
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub- section (3), a
Regional Transport Authority may, on an application made to it under section
73, grant a contract carriage permit in accordance with the application or with
such modifications as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit: Provided
that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any area not specified in
the application.
(2) The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides
to grant a contract carriage permit, may, subject to any rules that may be made
under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following
conditions, namely:--
(i)
that the vehicles shall be used only in
a specified area or on a specified route or routes;
(ii)
that
except in accordance with specified conditions, no contract of hiring, other
than an extension or modification of a subsisting contract, may be entered into
outside the specified area;
(iii)
the maximum number of passengers and the
maximum weight of luggage that may be carried on the vehicles, either generally
or on specified occasions or at specified times and seasons;
(iv)
the conditions subject to which goods
may be carried in any contract carriage in addition to, or to the exclusion of,
passengers;
(v)
that, in the case of motor cabs, specified
fares or rates of fares shall be charged and a copy of the fare table shall be
exhibited on the vehicle;
(vi) That, in the case of vehicles other than motor cabs, rates of hiring not exceeding
specified maximum shall be charged;
(vii) that, in the case of motor cabs, a special weight of
passengers' luggage shall be carried free of charge, and that the charge, if
any, for any luggage in excess thereof shall be at a specified rate;
(viii) that, in the case of motor cabs, a taximeter shall be fitted and
maintained in proper working order, if prescribed;
(ix) that the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice
of not less than one month,--
(a) vary the conditions of the permit;
(b)
attach to the permit further conditions;
(x)
that the conditions of permit shall not be departed from save with the approval
of the Regional Transport Authority;
(xi) That specified standards of comfort and cleanliness shall be
maintained in the vehicles;
(xii) That, except in the circumstances of exceptional nature, the
plying of the vehicle or carrying of the passengers shall not be refused;
(xiii) Any other conditions which may be prescribed.
(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.
(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.
4.) That
the Petitioner sates that since 1995 no fresh or new permit not issue by the
Respondent No. 2 till date under section 74 of the motor vehicle act but on the
other hand Respondent No. 2 are issuing the tourist Taxi permit without fixing
any limit.
5.) That
the Petitioner states that the Respondent No. 2 after violation of the
provision of section 74 of the motor vehicle act, auction 4000 meter taxi
permit to the one company for their personal gain and benefits. It is pertinent
to note that the whole state Transport Department was indulge in this illegal
act
6.) That
the Petitioner states that one Taxi Trade Union had also filed the writ
Petition No. 2043 of 2010 before this Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High
Court was please to passed order dated 01-12-2010 in the said writ petition
with the direction to expedite the hearing of the said writ petition and also
clear that all the Respondents should comply the outcome of the said writ
petition. The order is reproduced as under:
P.C.:
Rule
2. Notice to the Advocate General
3. Ad-interim relief in terms of prayers clause (d)
excluding bracketed portion. Any auction for motor cab that to be held during
the pendency of the petition shall be subject to the result of the petition.
The persons participating in the auction be clearly told about the same.
4. Hearing expedited
It
is pertinent to note that till date the said Trade Union and the Respondents
were keep mum on the said writ petition for their own personal gain. The copy
of the said order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay is annexed as Exhibit - C.
7.) That
the petitioner states that the Respondent No. 2 introduced several scheme as
under:
a. Fleet
Taxi scheme 2006
b. Call
Taxi scheme 2010
c. Phone
Fleet Taxi scheme 2010
The
Respondent no. 2 is always busy to keep happy the fleet taxi operators and
amending the conditions of the scheme time to time in favor of the operators but
not ready to take care the interest of the taximen. It is pertinent to note
that the Respondent No. 2 violated the terms and conditions of the scheme
mentioned above and issued licenses to the fleet taxi operators and the state
suffer a loss of millions of Rupees
8.) That
the petitioner states that the Respondent No. 2 is the authority to issue the
tourist Taxi permit under section 88(9) of the motor vehicle act. The section
88(9) of the motor vehicle act is reproduce as under:
Section 88(9) in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(9) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1) but
subject to any rules that may be made by the Central Government under sub-
section (14), any State Transport Authority may, for the purpose of promoting
tourism, grant permits in respect of tourist vehicles valid for the whole of
India, or in such contiguous States not being less than three in number
including the State in which the permit is issued as may be specified in such
permit in accordance with the choice indicated in the application and the
provisions of sections 73, 74, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 and 89 shall, as far
as may be, apply in relation to such permits.
9.) That the
petitioner states that few companies i.e. OLA Cab, Meru Plus and others are
running the Radio Cab/Meter Taxi in the MMRTA limit on the tourist Taxi permit
vehicles ( Permit issued Section 88(9) in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ). It is pertinent to note
that these entire tourist Taxi Vehicles are belongs to the individual owners
not own by this companies.
10.)
That the Petitioner states that the Respondent No. 2 are again planning
to sale / auction another 4000 Taxi Permits
within next 2/3 months and the act of the Respondent No. 2 is entirely illegal
and against the section 74 of the motor vehicle act.
11.)
That the petitioner states that Respondent No. 2 and the whole state
Transport Department are indulge to destroy or eliminate the entire 100 years
old meter taxi trade from the city of Mumbai and more than 50000 families of
the taximen are going to come on road due to the act and policies of the
Respondent No. 2.
12.)
That the petitioner states that the
following question of law has arise as under:
QUESTION OF LAW
A. Whether
the permit under section 74 of the motor vehicle act are saleable / auction
able or not?
B. Whether
the private companies are running the tourist Taxi vehicle as Radio meter Taxi
in the MMRTA limit under section 88 of the motor vehicle act?
C. Whether
only the meter Taxi vehicle under section 74 of the MVI act are responsible for
the traffic congestion in Mumbai not by
the tourist taxies, the permit issue under section 88(9) of the MVI Act?
D. The
operation of the phone fleet taxi in which the Respondent sale the meter Taxi
permits section 74 of the motor vehicle act is legal or illegal?
14.)
That the petitioner states that he has not filed any writ/application in the
Hon’ble High Court/ Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India or any other court in the above mentioned matter.
15.)
That the petitioner states that he is filling this present petition before this
Hon’ble Court with the liberty to amend/delete or alter this petition with the
permission of this Hon’ble Court.
Under these facts and
circumstances, the writ therefore, most humbly prays:
a) That
this Hon’ble Court may clear the question of law whether the meter taxi permit
under section 74 of the Motor vehicle act is saleable or actionable.
b) That
this Hon’ble Court may clear the question of law whether the tourist permit
issued under section 88(9) of the Motor vehicle act is permissible in law to
run as meter taxi in the MMRTA limit.
c) This
Hon’ble Court may direct respondent no 2 not to sell or auction any permit
under section 74 of the Motor Vehicle Act & stop the tourist taxi not to
ply as meter taxi or as Radio taxi in the MMRTA limit.
d) Ad-interim
pray clause(c) may be granted till the pendency of this writ petition
e) This
Hon’ble Court may cancel the auction of 4000 meter taxi permit earlier.
f) Any
other further order and/or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper.
Sanjay Khemka
Petitioner
In-Person
Dated
this__ Day of________, 2013
Place:
Mumbai
Verification
I,
Sanjay Sitaram Khemka, 514, MIDAS,
Sahar Plaza, AK Road, Andheri east, Mumbai 400059, Do hereby state and declare
that on solemn affirmation that whatever has been stated in the paragraphs 1 to
15 of the present petition are true and correct to best of my knowledge and
belief and I believe the same to be true.
Solemnly
Affirmed at Mumbai
This___Day
of _____, 2013
Sanjay
Khemka
Deponent
No comments:
Post a Comment