Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 116 (HP)

Sudesh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2013-02-26

V.K.SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. An earlier writ petition, being CWP No.1713 of 2011, titled Sudesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and another, filed by the petitioner was allowed by this Court, vide judgment dated 25.7.2011, Annexure PG operative part whereof is as under:- “In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Consequently, Annexure PE, dated 24.2.2010 and Annexure PF, dated 6.1.2011 are quashed with a direction to respondent No.2 to re-consider the case of the petitioner for renewal/modification of route permits issued in his favour vide letter Annexure PA, dated 14.10.2002, subject to availability of routes as on now, within a month from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner or in its next meeting, whichever is earlier, after affording him an opportunity of being heard, if so desired.” 2. Consequently, the case of the petitioner was considered by respondent No.2 in its meeting held on 27.8.2011, vide proceedings, Annexure PH and the decision to the following effect was taken:- “In compliance of order passed by Hon’ble High Court of H.P. in C.W.P. No.1713/2011, titled as Sudesh Kumar versus State of H.P. & others on 25-07-2011 the case was placed before the RTA in its meeting held on 27-8-2011. Petitioner Sh. Sudesh Kumar was also present and heard in person and statement of the petitioner was also recorded. The petitioner apprised the RTA that he had booked four number of bus chassis from Sikand & Co. Nagrota but the said company could not provide the chassis with in period of three months. After perusal of the record of RTO Office, Kullu by the RTA, major portion of the route permits applied for by the petitioner Sh. Sudesh Kumar falls on National Highway and frequency of buses on National Highway between Manali to Palampur is 05 to 10 minutes and also the routes do not fall in the New Transport Policy, 2004. Keeping in view the facts stated above the RTA reiterated the decision taken in the meeting held on 19-01-2010 and did not accede to the request of Sh. Sudesh Kumar petitioner.” 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition on the following substantive prayers:- “(i) That impugned Annexure-PH, dated 28th September, 2011 may kindly be quashed and set aside. Sudesh Kumar petitioner.” 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition on the following substantive prayers:- “(i) That impugned Annexure-PH, dated 28th September, 2011 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for renewal/modification of the stage carriage route permits, issued in favour of the petitioner, vide Annexure-PA.” 4. It was during pendency of the present petition that the following order was passed by this Court in this matter on 16.10.2012:- “Mr. Surinder Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over documents to Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General, from which prima facie, it appears that the contents of the affidavit dated 28th September, 012 filed by Secretary (IPH/TPT), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh may not be true. Respondent No.1 is directed to look into the matter himself and inquire from each of the Regional Transport authorities as to whether any fresh permits were issued on the old lines or not. Thereafter, he shall file his personal affidavit within a period of three weeks from today. List on 20.11.2012. In the affidavit, it shall also be disclosed as to what action has been taken against the erring official (s) who issued the permits, if any, in violation of provisions of law. It is clarified that if affidavit is not filed within the aforesaid period, respondent No.1 shall personally remain present in the Court” 5. In compliance of the above order dated 16.10.2012, respondent No.1 has filed the requisite affidavit on 19.11.2012 paras 5 to 7 whereof are as follows:- “5. That as to second directions of the Hon’ble Court, the respondent has examined the relevant record and it has come to forefront that only in two cases viz Sh. Harbans Singh, proprietor of M/s Jogindera Transport Company and Sh. Bhim Sain were released by the Regional Transport Authority which were sanctioned prior to 29th July, 2004, but were released in the year 2011 and 2008 respectively by the Regional Transport authority in contravention to the policy of 60:40 ratio and after the expiry of the purchase permission. 6. That the erring Officers who issued the permit in favour of Sh. Harbans Singh and Sh. Bhim Sain in violations of the law has been identified. The name of the erring officers are enumerated below:- (1) Sh. 6. That the erring Officers who issued the permit in favour of Sh. Harbans Singh and Sh. Bhim Sain in violations of the law has been identified. The name of the erring officers are enumerated below:- (1) Sh. Rajinder Singh, IAS, (The Director of Transport cum Chairman RTA in the year 2008). (2) Sh. Ashwani Kapoor, IAS, (Divisional Commissioner cum Chairman RTA in the year 2011). (3) Sh. Hari Singh Rana, HAS, (the RTO, Mandi in the year 2011) (4) Sh. Shyam Lal, Departmental Officer (now retired) (the then RTO, Kulu in the year 2008). 7. That it was during their tenure the irregularities has been committed in releasing the permit of Sh. Bhim Sen and Sh. Harbans Singh in violations of the provisions of the Transport Policy, 2004 and since the Officers at Sr.NO:1 to 3 are IAS/HAS cadre Officers whose disciplinary authority is Principal Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh as such vide letter NO: TPT-E(3)106/2011, dated 9/11/2012 the respondent has requested the Principal Secretary (Personnel) to initiate disciplinary/departmental action against the Officers. Insofar as Sh. Shyam Lal Soda, (Departmental Officer) (now retired) is concerned, it is intimated that a “Show Cause” notice has been issued to him for explaining his position within seven days. Copies of the letter and Show Cause notice is enclosed as Annexure-R-I and R-II.” 6. In the face of the factual position emerging out of the above affidavit, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of permit on the analogy of the said Sh. Bhim Sen, cannot be granted being in violation of the Transport Policy of 2004, which requires maintenance of a balance to the extent of 60:40 for grant of permits for rural and urban routes. 7. The petition is accordingly dismissed.