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 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

The Shivani Bolan Cooperative ... vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 15 November, 2017

CWP-25723-2017                                       1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH

106                                            CWP-25723-2017
                                               Date of Decision: 15.11.2017

THE SHIVANI BOLAN COOPERATIVE TRANSPORT SOCIETY LTD.
& ANOTHER
                                    ....PETITIONERS
                     VS

STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS                                   ....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

Present:     Mr.Amit Jhanji, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

              ****
AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral)

By this petition the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents in shifting the buses of some other routes to the booth from where they were operated. The petitioners are permit holders who ply buses in Hisar and Narwana. The precise grievance raised in the petition is that earlier their area of operation was transferred from booth No.1 at bus stand Hisar to booth No.2. However, now suddenly without being there an application also buses of two routes which were earlier operating from booth No.13 have also been shifted to booth No.2 and it is the complaint of the petitioners that this is an arbitrary exercise and consequently, justifies the invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that with this latest action there are approximately total number of 230 departures and arrivals at booth No.2 whereas at booth No.13 there are about

50. The arguments which have raised are:-

1. That as per the condition of permit a private operator could ask for a alteration in the time table etc. at least only after allowing to operate at 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 20-11-2017 23:36:16 ::: CWP-25723-2017 2 least 3 months, but in the present case this alteration has been within a few days.
2. Nobody had applied for this change.
3. By this action there is too much rush at booth No.2 whereas booth No.13 is almost deserted.

In my considered opinion, the management of a bus stand is a fairly intricate and dynamic process. It is quite possible that upwards of 1000 buses leave and enter the Hisar bus stand on a daily basis. In this circumstance, it may be foolhardy for a Court to step in without knowing the ground realities. Possibly the location of booth No.13 is such that it is near either the entry or the exit gate and if there is too much pressure on that booth ingress or egress from the bus stand is effected. There could be many such possibilities. Of course, if it is shown that a particular operator is being crowded out in the sense that he is being given shockingly unreasonable time to park and collect passengers it may be a different thing but in the present case time table which has been placed on record shows that in the early morning and the late evening there is a uniform gap of 10 minutes in the departure of different buses while during the day that gap is reduced to 7 minutes.

In the circumstances, I regret my inability to entertain this petition. The petition stands dismissed.

Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.



15.11.2017                                                    (AJAY TEWARI)
anuradha                                                          JUDGE

              Whether speaking/reasoned          -     Yes/No
              Whether reportable                 -     Yes/No




                                        2 of 2
                    ::: Downloaded on - 20-11-2017 23:36:17 :::