Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/10528/2023 on 29 December 2023
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.10528 of 2023 Decided on: 29.12.2023 Shri Bimal Sharma & others … Petitioners. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents.
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? _____________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sumesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4State. Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief: “(a) to take action on the basis of the Joint Inspection Report annexed as Annexure P5 and report of police annexed as Annexure P4 colly. by invoking of provisions of Section 115 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
(b) to issue a fresh Notification under Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the basis of the Annexure P 5 Joint Inspection Report and as per orders passed in CWP 7536 of 2023 annexed herewith as Annexure P6.
(c) to issue direction to the respondentsAuthorities to prohibit the movement of auto rickshaws and commercial Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
vehicles on road in question referred to as Annexure P1 from Point ‘X’ i.e. “Mahanirwani akhara” onwards uptil “Peepal Tree” marked ‘Y’.”
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that an order was passed by District Magistrate, Kangra on 10.10.2023, under Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in terms whereof, the Authority had prohibited the movement of Auto Rickshaws and commercial vehicles on the temple road Jawalamukhi, beyond Peepal Tree. This order was challenged by way of CWP No.7536 of 2023, titled as Maa Jwala Auto Operators Union Jwala Mukhi, District Kangra, H.P. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, on the ground that in terms of the provisions of Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no notification issued under said Section could remain in force without its publication in the Official Gazette beyond the period of thirty days. Said Writ Petition was allowed by this Court in terms of judgment dated 02.11.2023 in the following terms: “10. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Writ Petition is allowed and order impugned Annexure P 1, dated 10.01.2023 is quashed and set aside on the ground that said order could not have remained in force, for more than thirty days, without its being published in the Official Gazette. However, the quashing of the order, passed by the authority concerned, shall not be a bar upon the authority to issue any fresh Notification in accordance with law.”
3. According to the petitioners, despite the fact that a direction stood issued by the Court to do the needful in CWP No.7536 of 2023, no action has been taken by the Authority till date and it is in this background that this petition has been filed, praying for the reliefs already quoted hereinabove.
4. Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners as also learned Additional Advocate General, as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and having gone through the instructions imparted to the office of learned Advocate General by Deputy Commissionercum District Magistrate, Kangra, this Court is of the considered view that it cannot issue any mandamus to the District Magistrate to issue a notification under Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, because that is the prerogative of the District Magistrate who has to take said call if satisfied in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Besides this, no direction was issued by this Court in CWP No.7536 of 2023 (supra) to the District Magistrate to issue a fresh notification as all that this Court observed while setting aside the order passed by the District Magistrate was that the quashing of the same shall not be a bar upon the Authority to issue a fresh notification in accordance with law.
5. That being the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the observation that in case there are certain grievances of parties like the petitioners with regard to the plying of vehicles on a very narrow path/road, then the District Magistrate may take action thereupon. Petitioners are further at liberty to make an appropriate representation, if so advised, to the District Magistrate, Kangra, who shall take appropriate decision thereupon strictly in accordance with law. This Court is making this observation after having perused the photographs appended with the petition, which do demonstrate the fact that the plying of AutoRickshaws etc. on the narrow paths leading to the Mandir are indeed causing congestion and inconvenience to the pedestrians. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge December 29, 2023 (Rishi)