Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Thakur vs State Of H.P And Others on 11 July, 2022
Bench: Sabina, Satyen Vaidya
.
Jagdish Thakur Vs State of H.P and Others along with connected matters CWP Nos. 4812 of 2021 a/w CWP Nos. 5036, 5099, 5100, 5102, 5113, 5114, 5115 and 6291 of 2021 11.07.2022 Present: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Tejasvi Dogra, and Mr. Deepak Sharma Advocates, for the petitioner in CWP No. 4812 of 2021.
Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate, for petitioner(s) in CWP No. 5036, 5099, 5100, 5102, 5113, 5114, 5115 and 6291 of 2021.
Mr. Anil Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3State.
Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate, for the applicants.
CMP No.4125 of 2022 in CWP No. 4813 of 2021, CMP No.4123 of 2022 in CWP No.4812 of 2021, CMP No. 4126 of 2022 in CWP No. 4814 of 2021 and CMP No. 4227 of 2022 in CWP No. 4815 of 2021 Heard.
The subject matter of all the aforementioned civil writ petitions is similar in nature. Petitioners in all above noted petitions have challenged the actions of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, whereby the amendments/modifications allowed in the respective Stage Carriage Permits of the petitioners vide orders dated 11.06.2018 and 03.01.2019, have been reviewed by way of proceedings dated 02.11.2019 of respondent No.3 and communicated to the petitioners vide notices dated 19.08.2021.
The power and jurisdiction of respondents to review the orders dated 11.06.2018 & 03.01.2019 which ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2022 20:03:16 :::CIS .
amended/modified the permits of the petitioners has been challenged, on the ground that the order dated 12.09.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in COPC No.130 of 2019 providing the RTAs with source of power to review, is inoperative.
Contempt Petition i.e. COPC No.130 of 2019 was preferred by Sh. Virender Singh and Sh. Bittu Kanwar in CWP No.7295 of 2012. On the aforesaid motion of Sh. Virender Singh and Sh. Bittu Kanwar, the order passed on 12.09.2019 in COPC No.130 of 2019 read as under:
" Learned Advocate General, on instructions, candidly admits that there has been an oversight on the part of the officers of the State in issuance of permits. However, since there is no power of review these orders, therefore, the State is handicapped.
Admittedly, there is irregularity/illegality in the procedure adopted by the officers of the State, therefore, they are permitted to review all such proceedings under the order of the Court and report compliance by the next date of hearing. However, it is made clear that such proceedings shall be reviewed strictly in accordance with law, so as to bring them in conformity with the provision of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules.
The personal presence of the officer present in the Court is dispense with till further orders."
By way of interim orders passed in all the above noted writ petitions, petitioners have been allowed to ply their respective buses on the permitted routes i.e. the routes allowed ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2022 20:03:16 :::CIS .
in their favour by way of amendment/modification dated 11.06.2018 and 03.01.2019.
Petitioners in COPC No.130 of 2019, Sh. Virender Singh and Sh. BIttu Kanwar (hereinafter referred to as the applicants) have filed separate applications in all the above noticed writ petitions seeking their impleadment as additional respondents. The applications are CMP No.4125 of 2022 in CWP No. 4813 of 2021, CMP No.4123 of 2022 in CWP No.4812 of 2021, CMP No. 4126 of 2022 in CWP No. 4814 of 2021 and CMP No. 4227 of 2022 in CWP No. 4815 of 2021.
The common ground raised by all the applicants in their applications is that it was at their instance that the order dated 12.09.2019 was passed in COPC No.130 of 2019, which paved the way of authorities in undoing the illegality earlier committed by them allowing petitioners to ply their respective buses on amended/modified permits. As per applicants, COPC No. 130 of 2019 was filed by them as the proceedings dated 11.06.2018 & 03.01.2019 allowing amended/modified permits in favour of the petitioners were inviolation of judgment dated 08.05.2016, passed by this Court in CWP No.7295 of 2012. Applicants have further averred that the respondents had been able to correct the illegalities earlier committed by them, but required results could not be achieved on account of interim orders passed by this Court. On this premise, applicants have sought the right of hearing by their impleadment as party respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2022 20:03:16 :::CIS
.
Petitioners have strongly resisted the prayer of the applicants on the grounds, firstly that the Stage Carriage Permits held by applicants on one hand and petitioners on the other do not overlap and therefore, applicants have neither any right nor locusstandi to object the prayer of the petitioners made in the petitions. Secondly, the applicants had never raised any objection before authorities regarding allowance of amended/modified permits in favour of the petitioners. Lastly, that this Court has been asked by the petitioners to judicially review the administrative decision of statutory authorities on the basis of material on record, in which the applicants cannot have any say.
Petitioners, by way of averments made in their respective petitions, have pointed out certain judgments passed by this Court, which have bearing on the issue involved in the above noted writ petitions now pending before this Court. First, being the judgment dated 12.12.2014, passed in CWP No.7496 of 2014, titled Sachin Doger Vs. State of H.P & others, whereby it was held that the Regional Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to review its own order. The judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court dated 18.05.2016 in CWP No.7295 of 2016, titled as Ajay Parihar Vs. State of H.P & others has been quoted as second instance, whereby the authorities were directed to reinvite the applications for grant of route permits strictly as per procedure prescribed under the rules within four weeks from the date of passing of the ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2022 20:03:16 :::CIS .
judgment. The copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to Chief Secretary, Government of H.P for onward circulation to STA and RTAs' to ensure that henceforth, all the route permits were granted strictly in accordance with law.
rRespondentAuthority showed their inability to implement judgment dated 18.05.2016, passed in CWP No.7295 of 2012, on the ground that the power to review was held to be not existing with RTAs' as per judgment dated 12.12.2014, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.7496 of 2014.
Not only that the authorities had faced difficulty in implementing the judgment dated 18.05.2016 passed in CWP No.7295 of 2012, RTA, Shimla conducted proceedings dated 11.06.2018 & 03.01.2019, allowing amendment/modification in the route permits held by the petitioners. Applicants filed COPC No.130 of 2019 by alleging violation of judgment dated 08.05.2016 in CWP No.7295 of 2012. The proceedings of RTA conducted on 11.06.2018 & 03.01.2019 were alleged to be in violation of the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court. It was in these proceedings that order dated 12.09.2019, as noticed above, came to be passed in COPC No.130 of 2019.
Evidently, the action of respondent No.3 in holding proceedings dated 02.11.2019 and consequent notice issued to the petitioners on 19.08.2021 are the consequence of order dated 12.09.2019 ,passed in COPC No.130 of 2019. ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2022 20:03:16 :::CIS
.
It is also borne from the record that the petitioners, after passing of order dated 12.09.2019 in COPC No.130 of 2019, approached the Court for impleadment as parties in COPC No.130 of 2019. The prayer of the petitioners, however, was rejected.
In all the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, a specific prayer has been made to the following effects:
"iv) That the directions as contained in order dated 12.09.2019 (Annexure P5) passed in COPC No.130 of 2019 may be declared to be inoperative so far as review of RTA Shimla proceedings dated 11.06.2018 and 03.01.2019 are concerned."
To support the above noted prayer, the petitioners have raised following specific grounds:
A. That the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 do not provide for a review of its decisions by RTA constituted under the said Act. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court has declared the law in this regard. Hon'ble Single Bench is bound by the declaration of law made by Hon'ble Division Bench and in view of this situation no direction could have been given by Hon'ble Single Bench in Contempt Petition COPC No.130 of 2019 on 12.09.2019 (Annexure P5) and therefore, the consequential action taken by RTA Shimla in its meeting dated 02.11.2019 (Annexure P9) is liable to be quashed and set aside being illegal.
B. That in contempt proceedings in COPC No.130 of 2019 the Hon'ble Single Judge could not have given fresh directions which were not contained in the original judgment/order claimed to have been ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2022 20:03:16 :::CIS .
violated. In fact, the direction given by Hon'ble Single judge on 12.09.2019 (Annexure P5) amounts to giving fresh directions relating to review of RTA proceedings which direction was not there in the original order dated 18.05.2016 passed in CWP No.7295 of 2016 which is claimed to have been violated by the petitioners in COPC No.130 of 2019. E. That the impugned notices dated 19.08.2021 (Annexure P10 (Colly)) have been issued by respondent No.3 in compliance to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Single Bench in COPC No.130 of 2019 and in compliance to the review proceedings of RTA Shimla held on 02.11.2019. In view of above submissions and grounds, since Hon'ble Single Judge could not have issued directions in COPC No.130 of 2019 dated 12.09.2019 (Annexure P5) and consequently, no review proceedings of RTA Shimla could have been held on 02.11.2019, therefore, the impugned notices dated 19.08.2021 (Annexure P10) are liable to be quashed and set aside being the consequence of illegal review proceedings of RTA Shimla held on 02.11.2019". On detailed analysis of above noted facts as also the nature of controversy raised in the petitions, it cannot be said that the prayer of the applicants for impleadment as party respondents in writ petitions filed by the petitioners is unjustified. Since, the petitioners have raised specific grievance to the actions of respondents, which have emerged as the consequence of order dated 12.09.2019, passed by this Court in COPC No.130 of 2019, the applicants cannot be said to be totally strangers to the present proceedings, ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2022 20:03:16 :::CIS .
especially when contempt proceeding by way of COPC No.130 of 2019, has been initiated on the motion of applicants and is still pending. The applicants are, therefore, necessary parties. In any case, their requirement as proper party cannot be denied. In our considered view, the presence of applicants is necessary in above noted writ petitions filed by the petitioners in order to enable this Court to factually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved therein.
The reasons that had weighed with the petitioners to approach the Court for impleadment as parties in COPC No.130 of 2019 now estopps them from objecting to the same prayer of the applicants in proceedings in which order dated 12.09.2019 passed in COPC No.130 of 2019 is under challenge by way of necessary implication. Merely because, the prayer of the petitioners for the impleadment was not allowed cannot be a reason for this Court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for directing the impleadment of applicants as respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in above noted writ petitions.
Accordingly, applications i.e. CMP No.4125 of 2022 in CWP No. 4813 of 2021, CMP No.4123 of 2022 in CWP No.4812 of 2021, CMP No. 4126 of 2022 in CWP No. 4814 of 2021 and CMP No. 4227 of 2022 in CWP No. 4815 of 2021 are allowed and applicants therein are ordered to be ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2022 20:03:16 :::CIS .
added as respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in all the above noted writ petitions.
( Sabina )
r Judge
( Satyen Vaidya )
Judge
11th July, 2022
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2022 20:03:16 :::CIS