Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Operators Welfare Association & Ors vs The Union Of India & Ors on 25 July, 2011
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
25.07.11 In The High Court At Calcutta
ss Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
W.P. No. 11155 (W) of 2011
Howrah District Bus and Mini Bus
Operators Welfare Association & Ors.
v.
The Union of India & Ors.
Mr R.N. Das
Mr D.P. Dutta
Mr Souvik Sen
Mr Sumanta Ganguly ...for the petitioners.
Mr Rajesh Singh
...for the fourth, fifth, seventh and eighth respondents.
Ms Supriya Dubey ...for IRDA.
Questioning the notification dated April 15, 2011 (at p.92) issued by IRDA this art.226 petition has been filed.
From an order of the Single Bench refusing interim relief the petitioners concerned appealed to the Division Bench that has passed an interim order dated July 6, 2011.
The order dated July 6, 2011 passed in AST No. 492 of 2011 is quoted below:
"This appeal is to be heard as we see that the learned trial Judge has not adverted to the real issue.
There will be an order of status quo, as of today, with regard to payment of third party premium to the insurance company; to clarify, premium to be paid at the rate prevailing before increase of the rate of third party premium.
We think that respective insurance companies, who are involved with the members of the appellant association, should be notified and be made parties in this proceedings. Accordingly, notice shall be served upon all the concerned insurance companies, within a week from date.
This matter will appear in the list fortnight hence.
Let Xerox plain copy of this order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Lawyers for the parties on their undertaking that they will apply for and obtain Xerox certified copy of this order. In the event, Xerox certified copy is not taken delivery of, in spite of being notified, effect of the Xerox plain copy will stand extinguished."
In yet another appeal from a Single Bench order refusing interim relief the Division Bench passed an interim order dated June 7, 2011. The interim order was passed in view of the fact that in cases filed before the Madras and Kerala High Courts challenging the same notification interim orders were passed. Mr Das appearing for the petitioners prays for same interim order that the Division Bench passed on July 6, 2011.
Mr Singh appearing for some of the insurance companies has produced final orders passed by the Madras and Kerala High Courts dismissing the petitions in which the interim orders were passed and also an advocate's letter dated July 22, 2011 to show that the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal concerned and submitted that, on the facts, no interim order should be made in the case.
It is not disputed that the interim order dated July 6, 2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court is still in force. In my opinion, in the face of the interim order passed by the Division Bench, I should not refuse to pass an interim order simply because the cases in which the interim orders were passed by the Madras and Kerala High Courts have been subsequently dismissed. Whether the interim order passed by the Division Bench is to be vacated or varied is not to be considered by me sitting singly. In my opinion, I should pass the same interim order that the Division Bench has passed.
For these reasons, I admit the petition and pass the same interim order that the Division Bench has passed on July 6, 2011 in AST No. 492 of 2011.
The respondents shall file opposition within five weeks; reply, if any, shall be filed by a week thereafter.
This order shall be communicated to the non-appearing respondents within a week and affidavit of service showing compliance shall be filed at the time of final hearing.
Liberty to mention the matter for final hearing.
Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.)