Gopi Nath Tandon vs State of U.P. and Others

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred for issuance of following reliefs:

(a)To issue suitable direction, order or writ including a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated May 21, 1988 contained in Annexure No. 6 passed by Respondent No. 2 and the notice dated June 4, 1988 issued by the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority contained in Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition.

(b) To issue suitable direction, order or writ including a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 not to give effect to the order dated May 21, 1988 and the Notice dated June 4, 1988 issued in pursuance of the said order.

(c) To issue suitable direction, order or writ including a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents No. 3 and 4 not to ply their vehicles on the route Sitapur-Laharpur in pursuance of the permits granted by the Respondent No. 2 by its order dated May 21, 1988.

(d) To issue suitable direction, order or writ including a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Secretary of the Respondent No. 2 to issue temporary permits to the Petitioners pending decision on their renewal applications for which they are legally entitled.

(e) To issue any other appropriate writ, direction order as this Hon''ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(f) To award cost of this writ petition to the Petitioners.

While assailing the impugned order, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the scheme under which Rule was notified by the State Government, has been held ultra vires by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case reported in Saghir Ahmad Vs. The State of U.P. and Others, Submission of the Petitioner''s counsel is that present controversy is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case reported in Saghir Ahmad (supra).

Attention of this Court has been invited to the judgment of Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 25.9.1991 passed in Revision No. 252-254 of 1988.

In case the controversy is covered by the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Saghir Ahmad (supra), then it shall be appropriate for the State authorities to consider the Petitioner''s case with regard to Rules in question after taking into account the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court (supra).

Attention of this Court has also been invited to the subsequent letter dated 10.7.2009, issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Lucknow, with regard to renewal of permit.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is finally disposed of directing the competent authority to look into the controversy and take a decision in the light of judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Saghir Ahmad (supra), for the aforesaid reliefs. Let decision be taken by the competent authority within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and communicate decision. For a period of two months or till the controversy is decided whichever is earlier, the status quo as it exists today, shall be maintained.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. It is clarified that we have not entered into the merit of the controversy in question.