Court stays ban on entry of private luxury buses till Nov 26

  • | Wednesday | 14th November, 2018

However, the said notification is not made applicable to the state run luxury buses. The prayer clause seeks a stay on implementation of the notification during the pendency of petition.Lawyer Chaitanya Nikte, representing the petitioner, told TOI, “The notification is prima facie discriminatory as it puts restrictions on only private luxury buses. Still, we will abide by whatever direction the honourable high court gives to us.” This according to the petitioner is discriminatory.”“He (petitioner) has relied upon the decision of the apex court in the case of Ishwar Singh Bagga and others vs state of Rajasthan (1987) in support of his contentions. Through our petition, we have provided an apt elaboration of the background since 1999 when the PMC had first ordered a ban on buses entering the city and the directions and circulars issued thereafter by the home, urban development and revenue departments for creating a designated bus terminus for luxury buses.

Pune: A vacation bench of the Bombay high court on Wednesday ordered an ad interim stay till November 26 on the implementation of the Pune traffic police’s notification banning entry of private luxury buses in the city.The notification issued by Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) Tejaswi Satpute on October 26, banned the entry and movement of luxury buses on all routes except for four prescribed routes that can be used for exit to cities like Mumbai, Nashik, Ahmednagar and Solapur . It also banned the movement of luxury buses on these prescribed routes from 8am till noon and from 5pm to 9pm.Luxury bus operator Konduskar Travels Private Limited moved the high court challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the notification on the grounds that it was bad in law and issued without authority.The petitioner also prayed for the high court’s directions to the respondent-state, civic and police authorities to designate places within the Pune Municipal Corporation’s limits as bus terminuses for pick-up and drop-off points.The bench of Justice M S Karnik observed in its order, “It is the principal contention of the counsel for the petitioner that by issuing the impugned (under challenge) notification, restrictions are imposed on private luxury bus operators. However, the said notification is not made applicable to the state run luxury buses. This according to the petitioner is discriminatory.”“He (petitioner) has relied upon the decision of the apex court in the case of Ishwar Singh Bagga and others vs state of Rajasthan (1987) in support of his contentions. Learned assistant government pleader initially tried to justify the notification, but later on sought time to take necessary instructions,” the bench said.“Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, there shall be ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause `C’ (in the petition) till November 26,” the bench said. The prayer clause seeks a stay on implementation of the notification during the pendency of petition.Lawyer Chaitanya Nikte, representing the petitioner, told TOI, “The notification is prima facie discriminatory as it puts restrictions on only private luxury buses. Through our petition, we have provided an apt elaboration of the background since 1999 when the PMC had first ordered a ban on buses entering the city and the directions and circulars issued thereafter by the home, urban development and revenue departments for creating a designated bus terminus for luxury buses. The petition will now come up for hearing before a regular bench on the next date.”When contacted, DCP (traffic) Tejaswi Satpute said, “The petitioner’s argument that the notification is discriminatory is not correct considering that the private bus operators’ activity falls in the category of business while the state-run buses are part of the services provided by the government for public utility . Will the private operators ply their buses to places where the passenger load is less?.”On the argument that the DCP (traffic) is not authorized to issue such a notification under Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Satpute said, “The office of the DCP (traffic) has in the past issued several notifications in matters like this and there was no issue then. Still, we will abide by whatever direction the honourable high court gives to us.”

If You Like This Story, Support NYOOOZ

NYOOOZ SUPPORTER

NYOOOZ FRIEND

Your support to NYOOOZ will help us to continue create and publish news for and from smaller cities, which also need equal voice as much as citizens living in bigger cities have through mainstream media organizations.


Stay updated with all the Pune Latest News headlines here. For more exclusive & live news updates from all around India, stay connected with NYOOOZ.

Related Articles