Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jugni Cultural And Youth Welfare Club vs State Of Punjab & Others on 30 April, 2012

Author: Alok Singh

Bench: Alok Singh

CWP No. 7835 of 2012                                                    1


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

                        CWP No. 7835 of 2012
                    Date of decision : April 30, 2012


Jugni Cultural and Youth Welfare Club                        .....Petitioner

                                    Vs.

State of Punjab & others                                     ....Respondents

                                   ******

CORAM: HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner.

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

M.M. Kumar, ACJ.

1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to restrain the taxi/tour operators who use private cars as Limousine Taxi by modifying/altering its body structure un-authorisedly, without sanction from the requisite authority and in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act thereby causing not only danger to the life of the persons who are travelling in the said vehicles but also to the public at large; further to take necessary stringent and preventive steps like impounding of vehicles, cancellation of registration certificates and CWP No. 7835 of 2012 2 imposition of fine as per the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988; and further directing the respondents to take similar action against all other unauthorized modifications/alterations done by the commercial vehicles. In this regard the petitioner has already made a complaint dated 15.02.2012 (P-10), however, no action is stated to have been taken.

2. Without going into the merits of the case, we deem it just and appropriate to direct respondents to take cognizance of the complaint dated 15.02.2012 (P-10), made by the petitioner, and decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented to them. It shall be appreciated if a speaking order is passed.

3. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.





                                            (M.M. KUMAR)
                                         ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE



April 30, 2012                                 (ALOK SINGH)
Anand                                             JUDGE