In this post we’ll read about quashing of permit, offer of allotments and letter of intent by Punjab and Haryana HC issued to private bus operators for plying buses on those routes for which stage carriage permits were granted.
Background Facts:
The petitioners have already been granted permit to ply their buses on route in question. But the private respondents invaded their lawful rights under the grab of impugned permits, which are found to be legally unsustainable. As a result, the rights of the petitioner flowing Article19(1)g of the Constitution have been infringed.
Legal Provisions:
Article 19(1)(g) in The Constitution Of India 1949
to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 ), without
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of Article 32
Court’s Observation & Decision:
A bench headed by Justice Sindhu.
It was of the view that facts and circumstances of the case clearly revealed that state government was more interested in utilising it precious time taking executive decision for grant of permits without lawful authority.
Further it observed that intervening in quasi-judicial authorities’ function is better than bringing proper scheme at place so as to perennial litigation.
Justice Sindhu added it is unacceptable that the petitioners were mater of their case and couldn’t be forced to implead each and every permit holder as respondents.
Lastly the Court concluded that State Government is not legally empowered to take executive decision. Thus, the action taken were without any authority and even the action of respondents was found out to be in violation of SC order.
Therefore, the Punjab and Haryana HC quashed of permit, offer of allotments and letter of intent issued to private bus operators for plying buses on those routes for which stage carriage permits were granted.
Latest Legal News, Stories & Updates by LegalSeva 