M/s Shiv Transport vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

The petitioner before this Court is a transport firm, which is a partnership firm. The petitioner applied for registration of transporter in pursuance of the advertisement given by the Regional Food Controller, Kumaon Division, Haldwani for transporting food grains and other articles. One of the conditions given in the advertisement was that a firm must have at least 10 trucks in its name. According to the petitioner, it has more than 10 trucks, but these trucks are admittedly not in the name of the firm but belong to individual partners. Since, the petitioner did not fulfill this condition, inasmuch as the trucks are not in the name of the firm, but are in the name of individual partners, he has been declared as non-responsive.

Initially the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition (M/S) No.1083 of 2016, where a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 09.05.2016 had disposed of the matter. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:-

"Considering the facts of the case, grounds taken up in the writ petition and also the documents brought on record, the writ petition is disposed of by direction the petitioner to make a representation before the respondent no. 2 within three days, who shall decide the said representation of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law at an earliest possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this Order along with a copy of the fresh representation.

It is further directed that the decision so taken by the respondent no. 2 shall be communicated to the petitioner thereafter.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner today itself on payment of usual charges."

Pursuant to the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 09.05.2016, now a detail order has been passed by the authority rejecting the representation of the petitioner, inter alia, on ground that the trucks were not insured. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court.

The fact of the matter is that the Kumaon Division while inviting eligible candidates for registration of trucks for transporting food grains had categorically stated in the advertisement that a firm must have at least 10 trucks and they all should be registered in the name of a firm and not in the name of individual partners.

Admitted case of the petitioner is that the petitioner though has more than 10 trucks but they are in the ownership of individual partners, a term which is not acceptable to the respondents.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, would argue that there is no such objection in the Garhwal Division. This objection is only in Kumaon Division.

This may be so, but two wrongs do not make a right as on the face of the admitted position that trucks are not in the name of the firm, the authority has rightly held the petitioner to be non-responsive. Merely because this aspect has been ignored in the Garhwal Division will not give any right to the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has not been able to show before this Court as to what were the conditions in the Garhwal Division and whether they have been correctly followed or not. Presently the petitioner had applied for Kumaon Division where in the advertisement there was a specific condition as to the ownership of the truck, which the petitioner does not fulfill and hence he has been declared non-responsive.

This Court finds no anomaly in the matter. Consequently, the writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed.