Consumer Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Bombay
& Ors  Insc 818 (17 November 2006)
Pasayat & Lokeshwar Singh Panta
out of SLP (C) No.21367 of 2004) ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
calls in question legality of the judgment in writ petition No. 2207 of 2004
decided on 28.9.2004 by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. Respondent
No.5, a Society registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (in short the
'Act'), and its members filed the writ petition for a direction to the
respondents to implement recommendations made by the sub-committee appointed by
Regional Transport Authority (in short the 'RTA') (Respondent No.1). They also
prayed that the respondents be directed to implement the Resolution dated
4.2.2004 passed in a meeting under the Chairmanship of respondent No.1-RTA. The
High Court noted the undertaking given by the Pune Taximen's Consumer Co-
operative Society Ltd. (in short the 'Pune Society'), the present appellant to
shift Gala Nos.P-49 to P-52 within a period of two weeks. It directed the RTA
to ensure that Resolution No.15 dated 4.2.2004 is fully implemented. Direction
was also given to ensure that the recommendation of the sub-committee was
counsel appearing for the Pune Society-present appellant had submitted before
the High Court that their appeal was pending before the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal (in short the 'STAT').
impugned order, the High Court directed the STAT to dispose of the appeal as
expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the date of
order. It was stated that the shifting of appellant-Pune Society (Respondent
No. 5 before the High Court) to the Gala would be without prejudice to the rights
and contentions in the appeal pending before the STAT.
counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court was totally confused
about the issues and the reliefs sought for. The appeal then pending before
STAT had nothing to do with the issues involved. Though the Brihan Mumbai Mahanagar
Palika (in short 'Mahanagar Palika') was a party before the High Court, it is
not clear as to whether the Gala nos. P-49 to P-52 have been handed over. The
so-called concession is without instruction and even otherwise the writ
petition could not have been disposed of in the manner done.
the basic grievances and respective stand have not been discussed.
appears that the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Pune Society
stated by way of an undertaking before the High Court that shifting to Gala
P-49 to P-52 shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of order.
25.10.2004 on the basis of the statement made by learned counsel appearing for
the appellant, it was observed that the question as to what would happen when
Gala was made available to the appellant shall be considered in this appeal.
The statement of respondent No.5 (present appellant) that shifting shall be
done to Gala P-49 to P-52 within a period of two weeks was really of not much
High Court's order seems to be totally confusing.
undertaking by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 to act within a
particular time was really, as noted above, has no relevance The Gala Nos. P-49
to P-52 were, according to appellant, to be given by the Brihan Mumbai
Municipal Corporation. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that
Gala Nos.14 to 18 and A2 were to be first allotted by the Mahanagar Palika. The
members of the appellant-society had not been given the galas though according
to it all conditions were fulfilled.
counsel for the State supported the order of the High Court stating that the
appellant had been given necessary protection.
to be further noted that the dispute before the STAT was totally unconnected
with the subject matter of dispute in the writ petition. As the High Court's
order is totally confusing and even does not indicate any reason for arriving
at various conclusions, it would be appropriate for the High Court to re- hear
the matter. It shall consider the respective stand of the parties and pass
appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.