COCP No. 1183 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
COCP No. 1183 of 2008
Date of decision:- 23.11.2009.
The Samain Co-operative Transport Society Ltd.
...Petitioner
Versus
Shibash Kavi Raj and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present:- Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Addl. A.G. Haryana
for the respondents.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.
As per the averments made in this
petition, the petitioner Society alongwith others,
filed CWP No.16131 of 2007 for issuance of a writ
in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents
to grant permission to the petitioner to adopt any
other alternative route as they were not being
allowed to ply their buses freely on the routes
assigned to them on account of a serious law and
order situation.
2. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed
of vide judgment dated 05.11.2007 in view of the
statement of learned counsel for the respondent
with the direction to the respondents to take
necessary measures agreed upon by the respondents.
COCP No. 1183 of 2008 -2-
During the course of proceedings in CWP No.15641 of
2006 at least for a period of 6 months from the
date of the order whereupon a fresh decision shall
be taken by the Superintendent of Police, Hisar
whether or not the police protection is called for.
It is also relevant to refer to the judgment dated
27.10.2006 passed in CWP No.15641 of 2006, which
reads as follows:-
“In this writ petition, it is
contention of counsel for the
petitioners that due to law and order
problem created by some miscreants, it
is not possible for the petitioners to
ply their buses on the route, for
which they have valid stage carriage
permits.
When notice of motion was issued
on 28.09.2006, following order was
passed by this court:-
"Notice of motion for
13.10.2006.
Ms. Mamta Singal Talwar,
AAG Haryana accepts notice.
Counsel for the
petitioners is directed to
supply 3 copies of the writ
petition to the State counsel
during course of the day.
State counsel is directed
to get necessary instructions
as to why the State has failed
to maintain law and order on
the route concerned. It be
further ascertained to what
COCP No. 1183 of 2008 -3-necessary steps can be
initiated so that the buses of
the petitioners can ply on the
routes allotted to them.
District Transport Officer,
Hisar is directed to come
present on the next date of
hearing.”
Thereafter, on the next date of
hearing i.e. 13.10.2006, after
perusing affidavit filed by Additional
State Transport Controller, Haryana,
Senior Superintendent of Police, Hisar
was directed to come present in Court
On 17.10.2006, the officer came
present and assured this court that he
will ensure that the buses should run
smoothly, on the basis of route-
permits granted to the petitioners.
Today, State counsel informs this
court, on getting instructions from
Shri Surinder Pal Singh, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Hisar, that
under police escort, buses have
started plying and the officer assures
the Court that nobody will be allowed
to over-reach the law and stop buses
of the petitioners, in an illegal
manner.
This satisfies counsel for the
petitioners and in view of the
statement given, this writ petition
stands disposed of.
It is made clear that if, in
future, any such like situation
arises, the petitioners will be at
liberty to file a fresh writ
COCP No. 1183 of 2008 -4-
petition."
3. It is further case of the petition is that
two security guards were provided to him and the
bus of the petitioner started plying on 21.12.2007
and thereafter the aforesaid security was withdrawn
on 08.01.2008. After withdrawal of the security,
it was not possible for the petitioner to ply his
bus on the route for the reasons mentioned in the
writ petition.
4. Thus, grievance of the petitioner before
this Court is that despite the aforesaid judgments
passed by this Court in his favour, the respondents
have not taken any action against the illegal
plying of the vehicles and withdrawal of security
to its buses and therefore they are liable to be
punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971.
5. In response to show cause notice,
separate replies on behalf of respondents by way of
their affidavits were filed, stating that the
orders passed by this Court were complied with.
The relevant part of the affidavit, filed on behalf
of respondent No.1 reads as follows:-
“That some Civil Writ Petitions were
filed by the petitioner Society and
others (hereinafter called Society)
bearing No. 18453 of 2006, 752 of
2007, 15641 of 2006, 16131 of 2007
COCP No. 1183 of 2008 -5-against the respondents wherein this
Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct
the respondents to take necessary
measures agreed upon by the
respondents during the course of
proceedings at least for a period of
six months and thereafter
Superintendent of Police, Hisar will
take fresh decision whether or not
Police protection is called for.
Immediately on receipt of orders of
Hon’ble High Court, the deponent
endorsed copies to all SHOs/DSsP in
District Police, Hisar to ensure
compliance with a copy to Hon’ble
Assistant Registrar (Writ) Punjab &
Haryana High Court vide Superintendent
of Police, Hisar office endst. No.
30831 dated 13.12.2007. The deponent
had a talk with representatives of
Private Transport Societies in this
regard and buses of Coop. Societies
started plying with effect from
20.11.2007. The Coop. Society of
Route No.5, despite repeated requests,
did not ask for police protection.
The needful was done by the Local
Police and several challans were
chalked out in the district who were
unauthoriselly plying their vehicles
at the cost of Societies. It is
further respectfully submitted that
for sometime, the buses owned by the
various Co-operative Societies did ply
under police protection. The Local
Police did whatever was possible to
comply with orders of this Hon’ble
COCP No. 1183 of 2008 -6-Court by deputing large number of
staff on duty. Abruptly on 05.12.2007
in the morning, the petitioner’s
representatives came to Police
Station, Sadar Hansi, District Hisar
and got their statement recorded vide
Daily Diary Register Report No.54 of
same date to the effect that because
of threats and boycott by the
villagers, they are not in a position
to ply the buses and they themselves
stopped their buses plying on routes
allotted to them. On inquiry, the
representative of society did not
disclose the names to S.H.O. concerned
from whom threats were received. He
replied that they are residents of
adjoining villages and do not want to
incur enmity with them. Copy of DDR
dated 05.12.2007 of Police Station,
Sadar Hansi translated in English is
enclosed at Annexure R-1. Under the
circumstances, the Local Police was
helpless to do anything more for these
Societies. It is further submitted
that when the petitioner’s societies
asked for stoppage of Police
protection, it was necessary to permit
Roadways Buses to ply keeping in view
the convenience of the general public.
This was done by RTA, Hisar and not by
the deponent. It is further submitted
that the deponent was not in a
position to stop the Roadways buses
when the petitioner-Society stopped
plying their Buses. The public
convenience was equally necessary. A
COCP No. 1183 of 2008 -7-representation was later on received
in the month of March, 2008 and
needful was done vide Superintendent
of Police, office No.6322-24 dated
12.03.2008. Thereafter the deponent
was transferred from Hisar and joined
as such at Ambala on 12.06.2008 (FN).
So at no point of time any lapse took
place on the part of the answering
deponent. It is also submitted that
at the initial stage, the petitioner
Society in respect of route No.5 did
not ask for police protection and at a
latter stage vide their application
dated 28.02.2008, asked for police
protection. The same was immediately
given and orders were issued in this
regard vide Superintendent of Police,
Hisar office No.6322-24 dated
12.03.2008 and 6109-13 dated
14.03.2008. Thereafter the deponent
was transferred and assumed charge as
Superintendent of Police, Ambala on
12.06.2008 (AN). The deponent duly
complied with the order of this
Hon’ble Court in letter and spirits.”
No counter has been filed by the
petitioner to controvert the defence as taken by
the respondents.
6. From the stand taken by the respondents,
it is clearly made out that the respondents have
taken over possible action to comply with the
orders passed by this Court by deputing large numbe
COCP No. 1183 of 2008 -8-
of staff on duty. It may also be pointed out here
that the security of the buses was withdrawn at the
petitioners’ request as they have stopped plying
their buses themselves. Therefore, roadways buses
were allowed to ply keeping in view the convenience
of general public by the Regional Transport
Authority.
7. Thus, it cannot be said that there was any
disobedience on the part of the respondents. There
is nothing on record to suggest that the security
of the buses of the petitioners was withdrawn by
the respondents willfully or with any malafide
intentions.
8. Thus, I find no merit in this petition and
is dismissed.
9. Rule discharged.
November 23, 2009 ( Rakesh Kumar Garg ) vj Judge