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