1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3730/2008 NITIN NAGORAO MOHOD VERSUS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF CITY OF AMRAVATI AND OTHERS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.S.S.Shingane, Advocate, for the petitioner, Mr.J.B.Kasat, Advocate, for Respondent No.1 Mrs. B.H.Dangre, Asstt. Govt.Pleader for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3. CORAM : D.D.SINHA & F.M.REIS, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 3 , 2009 . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2/- Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is propagating a public cause by filing the present petition. It is contended that the Municipal Corporation of City of Amravati - Respondent No.1 has entered into an agreement with the Respondent No.4 for the purposes of providing City Bus service through a private agency on “Build, Operate & Own” basis. The agreement is dated 20.2.2006 and the period of agreement is of 10 years. After expiry of the period of 10 years, the Corporation shall have 2 option to renew the agreement on such terms and conditions as may be decided by corporation. 3/- The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the grievance of the petitioner is in respect of Clause 11 of the Agreement, which reads thus - “11. ROYALTY : That irrespective of income of the Agent, the Agent shall be liable to pay the royalty to the Corporation at the rate quoted by agent in equal monthly installment every month commencing after 3 months from the date of agreement or running of business in proportionate to the actual kilometers per route whichever is earlier and said amount will be paid on or before 5th day of every month and in default of payment of the royalty amount, the Corporation shall be entitled to terminate this agreement and recover the due amount of royalty from the Agent, along with interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of amount due till payment, as if it is a tax payable under Section 127 of BPMC Act. However, the agent shall not be liable to pay the royalty in respect of during during which the buses are not run in the city due to strike or riots. 4/- It is contended that the respondent No.4 is not paying royalty as stipulated in 3 Clause 11 above on or before the fixed date mentioned in the said Clause every month and therefore, the Corporation is liable to recover the interest on the delayed payment at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of amount due till payment. However, the Corporation is not imposing any interest and therefore, such action of the Corporation is resulting in causing loss to the public exchequer. 5/- Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per Clause 2 of the agreement, the respondent No. 4 was supposed to purchase 35 buses which was the requirement of City of Amravati, and were required to be purchased within three months from the date of agreement. However, till this date, Respondent No. 4 has purchased only 28 buses which is causing inconvenience to the citizens. 6/- Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the bus operators are taking more passengers than the permitted capacity and therefore, violating the Rules, which is endangering the safety of the citizens. 7/- Mr. Kasat, learned counsel for the Corporation has submitted that the petitioner is not the public spirited person and has not approached this Court with clean hands. It is 4 submitted that the petitioner has a positive interest in the litigation and approached this Court with oblique motive and it is a personal interest litigation and has nothing to do with the public cause. It is contended that the petitioner is a founder of Vidarbha Auto Chalak Federation and Chairman of Auto Chalak- Malak Cooperative Credit Society and if the city bus service is discontinued, the petitioner and his fellow Auto Rickshaw pliers would be directly benefited and therefore, the petitioner is trying to do his best to see that the city bus service is discontinued. 8/- It is further contended that as per Clause 11, respondent no.4 has to pay royalty every month on the date fixed by the said clause. However, at times there is some delay caused by respondent No. 4 in paying the same. It is further contended that for want of instructions, he is unable to tell the court whether the Corporation has imposed any interest on the delayed payment of royalty from respondent no.4. 9/- Mr. Kasat, learned counsel for Respondent Corporation has submitted that it is no doubt true that as per Clause 2 of the agreement, respondent no. 4 was supposed to buy 35 buses. However, the requirement as on 5 today is of 28 buses and the citizens of City of Amravati are not put to any inconvenience since all these 28 buses are being plied on 8 different routes which virtually covers the whole area of the Amravati Municipal Corporation. 10/- Mrs. Dangre, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 has submitted that whenever the bus operator has allowed more passengers than the permitted capacity, the action was taken against them and as on today there is no overloading. Similarly the bus operator has paid all taxes etc. 11/- We have considered the rival contentions. At the outset, we want to express that the person who knocks the door of this Court for the purpose of protecting the public interest must be public spirited person who should not have any personal interest in the litigation and the cause must be purely in the interest of the society at large and should not have any personal interest at all. 12/- In the instant case, on the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is evident that if the city bus service at Amravati is disrupted for whatever reason, the petitioner and his fellow auto-rickshaw drivers would be directly 6 benefited and therefore, in our view, the petitioner has a personal interest in the litigation. 13/- Be that as it may, so far as the issue of royalty is concerned, we direct the Corporation to ensure that Respondent no. 4 must pay royalty on the date fixed by Clause 11 of the agreement and for some reasons, if there is a delay in making payment of royalty on the date fixed by clause 11, then Corporation must recover interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the delayed payment as mentioned in Clause 11. Similarly, as per the need, respondent no. 4 may be asked to purchase more buses keeping in view Clause 2 of the agreement. Respondent No. 2 is directed to ensure that the bus operator shall pay all taxes according to rules and shall not carry passengers more than the permitted capacity. 14/- The parties to the agreement dated 20.2.2006 are bound by the terms & conditions of the said agreement. 15/- With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rvjalit