- (1.) HEARD Sri S.N.Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Yashwant Verma, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no.1, 2 and 4 and Sri Samir Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3.
(2.) THE petitioners applied for grant of regular stage carriage permits on an Inter Regional Route i.e. Bulandshahr-Badaun via Shikarpur-Naraura-Sahaswan (hereinafter referred to as "applied route"). THE part of applied route falls within the region of Ghaziabad and part within the region of Bareilly and that is how it is termed as "Inter Regional Route". It is not in dispute that jurisdiction to grant permit in such matter lie with State Transport Authority, U.P. Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "S.T.A."). The petitioners' claim that applied route is a non notified route. The applications, however, were rejected by S.T.A. on the ground that applied route forms part of a notified route i.e. Sahaswan to Badaun via Bilsi which was notified vide notification No.1754/30-2-26-66 dated 22nd June, 1977. It also observed that no private operator has been permitted to ply its buses on the aforesaid route. The petitioners filed appeal and Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by order dated 9 th May, 2011 and passed the following order: "The appeals are partly allowed and partly dismissed. The S.T.A. is directed to grant the permit to the appellants to operate their vehicles on the route Bulandshahr-ShikarpurNarora-Sahaswan. Required permit fee etc. be deposited by the appellants in accordance with law.2 A copy of this judgment be kept on the record of each of Appeals Nos.21/2008, 22/2008, 23/2008, 24/2008, 25/2008 & 26/2008 and the original judgment be retained on the record of appeal No.1/2008. Record received from the State Transport Authority, U.P., Lucknow be sent back to its office." Consequently, applications of the petitioners for grant of permit from Sahaswan to Badaun route were rejected. In para 12, the petitioners have admitted that Badaun-Sahaswan-Bilsi was notified on 4 th April, 1960. It is however pleaded that due to increase in population multi fold and the route getting busy, it had become necessary to increase buses to cater the public and save them from hardship but all these aspects have been ignored by respondents authorities. It is also said that the Government has denotified all the old schemes in U.P. This fact has been said in para 16 of writ petition, which has been sworn on the basis of legal advise.
(3.) THIS Court while entertaining the writ petition on 06.2.2012 passed the following order: "Let the Secretary, State Transport Authority i..e respondent no.2 file his personal affidavit by 22 nd February,2012 categorically stating that once it had come to a finding that the route Bulandshahr to Badaun was notified and therefore, applications filed for grant of permit on the said route were liable to be rejected, how has it proceeded to grant permit on part of the same route i.e. Bulandshahr to Sahaswan, more so when no applications qua said limited part of the route were filed. Put up this matter on 22nd February, 2012." The aforesaid order, despite communication by learned Standing Counsel, was not complied and no affidavit was filed by3 Secretary S.T.A. i.e. respondent No.2 hence the Court was constrained to pass following order on 23.03.2012 which reads as under: "This Court directed respondent No.2 to file personal affidavit by 22.02.2012 relating to certain facts stated therein but the same has not been complied so far. Learned Standing Counsel states that he has sent a letter but has not received instructions. In the circumstances, Secretary, State Transport Authority, U.P. Lucknow is directed to appear before this Court personally on 11.04.2012 to explain as to why proceedings under Contempt of Court Act be not initiated against him for disobeying and flouting this Court's order dated 06.02.2012. A copy of this order shall be made available to learned Standing Counsel by 26.03.2012 to enable him to communicate the concerned respondent and compliance." ;