http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5022 of 2006

PETITIONER: Pune Taximen’s Consumer Co-operative Society Ltd.

RESPONDENT: The Regional Transport Authority,Bombay & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/11/2006

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C) No.21367 of 2004)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

Appellant 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  implemented fully.    Learned 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’).  

By the 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.

Learned 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

concession is without instruction and even otherwise the writ  petition could not have been disposed of in the manner done.  Even the basic grievances and respective stand have not been  discussed.      

It 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.   On 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 relevance.    The High Court’s order seems to be totally confusing.   The 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. Learned counsel for the State supported the order of the  High Court stating that the appellant had been given  necessary protection.  

It is 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 necessary orders.        

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.