High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Shyam Lal Bhatia And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 11671 of 2006  RD-AH 5805 (9 March 2006)
Court No. 36
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11671 of 2006
Shyam Lal Bhatia & Ors. ------- Petitioners
The State of U.P. & Ors. ------- Respondents
Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.
Hon'ble Vikram Nath J.
Connect with Writ Petition No. 67159 of 2005 in which similar issue is involved, namely, whether the resolution of the STA dated 9.3.1994 is still continuing or whether it has been rescinded or modified by the STA. The other question is whether it is open to the RTA to take any decision or action contrary to the resolution of the STA.
On 26.10.2005, the following interim order has been passed in the connected writ petition:-
"It has been stated in para 17 of this writ petition that the resolution of the STA dated 9.3.1994 is still continuing and has not been rescinded or modified by the STA. Accordingly, it is contended that the order of the STA under Section 68(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being binding on the Regional Transport Authority, the decision of the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting dated 22nd June, 2005 requiring replacement of 9 year old vehicles irrespective of their condition is not only violative of law but also violative of various decisions of this Court including the decision dated 23rd April, 2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 55483 of 2000.
In the circumstances, the Standing Counsel may file a counter affidavit within a month. List thereafter.
In the meantime, the petitioners will not be compelled to replace their vehicles covered by their existing permits merely on the ground that the vehicles are more than 9 years old, provided the vehicles are less than 20 years old and also provided that they are pollution free. It is made clear that endorsement will not be refused accordingly on the aforesaid grounds."
By several individual orders, some of them dated 4.2.2006 and some dated 10.2.2006, 40 petitioners of this writ petition have been restrained from operating their vehicles covered by permits on the ground that the vehicles have completed the prescribed period of 9 years. Further the petitioners have been asked to surrender their permits and papers forthwith.
In view of the above situation, we stay the operation of the orders dated 4.2.2006 and 10.2.2006, filed cumulatively as Annexure 2 to this writ petition, so far as the petitioners and their vehicles mentioned in the chart enclosed as Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit are concerned.
No action will be taken against the plying of the aforesaid vehicles mentioned in the chart by the petitioners in accordance with the permit issued for the vehicle concerned and the conditions of permit, merely on the ground that the vehicle in question has completed 9 years period of service. However, this order will not restrain checking of the vehicles for other reasons by the respondents and to ensure that the plying of the vehicles is not causing pollution in the city to the detriment of the other citizens.
Standing Counsel may file a counter affidavit within a month.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.