Allahabad High Court | Courts & Cases

Judgment

1. The above mentioned writ petitions were heard and judgment was reserved on 10.04.2025. page no. 2

2. After going through the records what comes out is that Writ C No. 8970 of 2008 was filed challenging certain orders dated 08.09.2008, 18.07.2008 and also seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to continue to give authorization in favour of the petitioners for their vehicles to ply on Shamli to Loni Border via Kandhla-Baraut-Baghpat. In para 5 it has been cursorily mentioned that some of the petitioners are joint permit holders and owners of the vehicles. In para 18 it has been stated that the authorizations in favour of the petitioners were being renewed from time to time and were lastly renewed till 30.09.2008. None of the authorizations pertaining to the petitioners who are 57 in number have been annexed. These authorizations would be referable to Section 4 or 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Special Provision) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act, 1976'). Such authorizations were given under the aforesaid provisions to those who had a contract carriage permit under the U.P. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act, 1939') but the Mini Bus owned by them instead of being plied as a contract carriage were being plied as stage carriage. This misuse of permit was detected and correctional measures were page no. 3 taken which led to the throwing out of employment of a large number of Mini Bus Operators, etc., and secondly as, there were certain routes on which private buses were plying which overlapped some of the routes notified under Chapter IV A of the Act, 1939 and Hon'ble the Supreme Court had in a decision held that if an approved scheme did not make specific provisions for any private operator to ply stage carriages over a part of notified route, such plying was illegal, therefore, to overcome the said situation and the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court the aforesaid Act, 1976 was brought. Now, the Act, 1939 was repealed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act 1988') vide Section 217 (1).

3. One of the issues arising in these writ petitions is as to whether the Act, 1976 was a corresponding law as referred in Section 217 (1) of the Act, 1988, as, if it was so, then, it also stood repealed, however, if it was not so, then, the said Act, 1976 continued to be operative till its repealing by a subsequent enactment, namely, Uttar Pradesh (Second) Repealing Act, 2021. The vires of this Repealing Act, 2021 is under challenge in Writ C No. 10526 of 2023 and Writ A No. 11851 of 2024. page no. 4

4. Be that as it may, Writ C No. 8970 of 2008 does not contain relevant details as to the authorizations allegedly granted to 57 petitioners which are necessary, as, such authorizations would be for a particular period and this Court would like to know as to whether the said period had expired prior to coming into force of the Act, 1988, if so, whether they had been renewed, if there was a provision for the same, but,

none of these aspects have been addressed in the writ petition. No counter affidavit has been filed in the said petition by the opposite parties. The affidavit in support of the Writ C No. 8970 of 2008 has been filed by Subodh Rana.

5. It needs to be mentioned that it is not the permit granted under the Act, 1939, some of which as claimed have been renewed till 2008, which are in issue rather it is the authorizations allegedly granted under the Act, 1976 and the repeal of the said Act, 1976 which are in issue, but, none of the authorizations have been brought on record.

6. Surprisingly, the opposite parties have also sat over the matter and have not filed any counter affidavit presumably because, according to them, the question involved was a legal one. However, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid facts are page no. 5 necessary for a complete and substantive adjudication of the issues, especially the locus of the petitioners to maintain these writ petitions. Details of the vehicles i.e. the Mini Buses in respect to which the authorizations were issued have also not been given. In the array of parties the validity of permit granted to some of the petitioners is mentioned while there is no mention about the same in respect of other petitioners, but, there is no reference to the authorizations. The copies of the permits have not been annexed with this petition.

7. As regards Writ C No. 10526 of 2023 this has been filed by three petitioners all of whom claim to be President of three Mini Bus Associations without any details of such Associations and their legal status as to whether they are registered with any authority, if so, under which enactment, have been disclosed in the writ petition. A list of members of respective Mini Bus Associations has been annexed collectively as Annexure-2 but without annexing any registration certificate and other documents pertaining to the three Bus Associations. This petition can only be treated as a petition at the behest of the three petitioners and not at the behest of the alleged Mini Bus Associations as it has not been filed in their names. Moreover, page no. 6 here also Annexure-2 mentions the authorization letter and their number in Column 4 but the authorization letters have not been annexed. It should have been done as it would disclose the terms and conditions of the authorizations under the Act,

1976. Annexure-3 to this petition contains certain permits which are not legible. As already stated, it is not the permits issued under the Act, 1939 which was a contract carriage permit as is also evident from Annexure-3, which is in issue herein. What is in issue is the authorization under the Act, 1976. None of which have been annexed.

9. Same is the position with Writ A No. 11851 of 2024. The pleadings in all the writ petitions in respect to relevant factual aspects pertaining to petitioners are lacking. The three petitioners of Writ C No. 10526 of 2023 mentioned herein are also petitioners in the earlier petition bearing Writ C No. 8970 of 2008.

10. In Writ A No. 11851 of 2024 there are as many as 10 petitioners. In para 5 of this petition it is stated that contract carriage permits were issued in favour of the petitioners in the year 1972 under the Act, 1939, but, thereafter nothing has page no. 7 been stated as to when the authorizations referable to the Act, 1976 were issued in favour of the petitioners. No copies of the authorizations have been annexed. Cursory reference about the petitioners having obtained authorization certificate from opposite party no. 2 for operating on the notified route Belari- Shahabad have been made in para 20, 21, etc. Here-again the copies of permits have been annexed but the authorizations have not been annexed. Mere annexing of fee receipts would not suffice. The pleadings in all the writ petition are rather casual.

11. Further, the vires of Repealing Act, 2021 has been challenged in Writ C No. 10526 of 2023 and Writ A No. 11851 of 2024 but notices have not been issued to the learned Advocate General nor the opposite parties have bothered to file a counter affidavit in any of three writ petitions.

12. After going through the records, we are of the opinion that not only the petitioners are required to bring on record the authorizations referred above, but, subject to the same and their locus to maintain these writ petitions a counter affidavit from the opposite parties would also be required, apart from issuance of notice to learned Advocate General. page no. 8

13. Accordingly, let all these writ petition be listed in the 2nd week of August, 2025 amongst top ten cases.

14. In the meantime, the petitioners in all the writ petitions should file their affidavits in the light of what has been stated hereinabove and the affidavits should clearly disclose the writ petitions filed by them and the orders passed therein.

15. Subject to above, the opposite parties should file their para-wise reply to the writ petitions keeping in mind what has been observed hereinabove.

16. Let notice be issued to the learned Advocate General in Writ C No. 10526 of 2023 and Writ A No. 11851 of 2024.

17. The interim order which is operating in Writ C No. 8970 of 2008 shall operate qua the petitioners of said petition only till the next date of listing. The interim order dated 29.01.2025 which is operating in Writ A No. 11851 of 2024 shall continue till next date of listing. [Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Order Date :- 23.06.2025 Santosh/-