Uttarakhand High Court
Naveen Chandra And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 6 January, 2017
Author: V.K. Bist
Bench: V.K. Bist
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No.3 of 2017
Naveen Chandra & others. ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another. .......Respondents
Mr. K.N. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. P.C. Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents.
Dated: January 6, 2017
Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to decide the application of the petitioners for grant of Permit in favour of the petitioners for plying the Buses at SIDCUL Intercity Bus Routes Which Centre at Lalkuwan, which have been sanctioned by R.T.A. earlier in its meeting.
(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to consider the applications of the petitioners under the Motor Vehicle Act within stipulated period."
2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that, on 01.02.2011, the Regional Transport Authority, Haldwani, in its meeting, gave sanction for plying the private buses, which is called as SIDCUL Intercity Bus. The said sanction was only for plying the SIDCUL Intercity bus at SIDCUL Intercity Bus Routes, Which Centre at Lalkuwan. In August & September, 2016, the petitioners submitted their applications before the respondent no. 2 seeking 2 permit under the Motor Vehicle Act for plying their buses in all the routes, which have been sanctioned by the R.T.A. in its meeting held on 01.02.2011. According to the petitioners, the applications filed by the petitioners, seeking permit under the Motor Vehicle Act for plying their buses in all the routes, which have been sanctioned by the R.T.A. in its meeting held on 01.02.2011, have not been decided by the respondent no. 2 so far. Hence, this writ petition.
3. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners confined his prayer and prayed that direction may be issued to the respondent no. 2 to decide the pending applications of the petitioners at the earliest.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand would submit that the applications filed by the petitioners will be decided by the respondent no. 2 in accordance with law.
5. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2 to decide the pending applications of the petitioners (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition), in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.
(V.K. Bist, J.)
Arpan 06.01.2017