Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Unknown vs Mr. Shailendra Balwada on 16 December, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18601/2015 (Jaidiya Kishori Lal v. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of Order: 16/12/2015 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Mr. Shailendra Balwada, for the petitioner.
Mr. V.D. Gathala, Addl.GC, for the respondents No.1 to 3.
This court on 10.12.2015 in connected matter, Suman Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17636/2015, had passed the following order:-
The petitioner is a registered owner of Vehicle No. RJ18-PB-0091 Model No. 2015 Sleeper Bus having sitting capacity of 17 seats and 22 sleepers. The permit was issued in favour of the petitioner, which was valid from 7.9.2015 to 6.9.2020.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has averred that at the behest of the respondent No.4, registration of vehicle was cancelled purportedly on the ground that the petitioner for obtaining registration had relied upon fabricated documents. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner along with other transporters had lodged complaint against G.Y. Fitness Centre, Jhunjhunu and in the said Fitness Centre, Jhunjhunu, the respondent No.4 is having interest and he is controlling the said Fitness Centre by having benami interest. It is further stated that the State of Rajasthan is in the process of grant of permits for 476 routes. The meeting for grant of routes had to take place between 3.12.2015 and 17.12.2015. This contention of the petitioner has been very aptly noted in the order dated 4.12.2015 passed by the co-ordinate Bench, whereby respondents were called to file reply. The order dated 4.12.2015 reads as under:-
Mr. V.D. Gathala prays for a little accommodation to respondent to the writ application.
Mr. R.K. Sharma appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the process for grant of permits on 476 routes in the State of Rajasthan has commenced with effect from 3rd December, 2015 and is to conclude on 7th December, 2015.
In view of the above, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of permit in the process aforesaid. However, the result of the petitioner may be kept in a sealed cover.
The matter be listed on 10th December, 2015.
In the meantime, learned counsel for the State-respondents may file counter affidavit, if so advised.
The learned counsel for the respondents at the outset submitted that competent authority has not held the meeting and the same has been post-poned.
The only question before this Court is that whether registration of the vehicle of the petitioner has been cancelled for valid reasons or due to mala fide reasons at the behest of the respondent No.4.
Dr. Ram Kishan Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that he will be satisfied if an inquiry is conducted by a Superior Officer of the respondent No.4, after hearing all concerned and it is determined whether registration of the vehicle was cancelled for valid reasons or not.
To this prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent has no objection.
Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of, by issuing a direction that the State Transport Commissioner himself or through officer of similar rank shall hold an inquiry to determine whether the registration of the vehicle of the petitioner was validly cancelled or not. The Commissioner shall also consider the plea of the petitioner that the same was done for mala fide reasons at the behest of the respondent No.4.
The inquiry officer after hearing all concerned shall conclude the Inquiry within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Meanwhile, in case the meeting of the competent authority is held, the application of the petitioner shall be considered along with the application of other persons who have applied for the route and result thereof shall be kept in sealed cover. The sealed cover shall be opened after conclusion of the inquiry.
Needless to say that if the Inquiry Officer comes to conclusion that the registration of the petitioner has been wrongly cancelled, department shall take remedial measures to restore the registration.
This court had not issued notice to the respondent No.4 as this court had not determined the allegation of malafide and had kept that question open to be examined by the inquiry officer.
Hence, without issuing notice to the respondent No.4 and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri V.D. Gathala, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3, the present petition is disposed of in the same terms as in the case of Suman Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17636/2015, decided on 10.12.2015.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J.
Govind /-
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Govind Sharma, Sr.PA