ttm 1 wp1876-11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1876 OF 2011 Mr.Dattatray Pandurang Khartode .. Petitioner Vs. The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Others .. Respondents Mr.Amol Mhatre i.b Mr.Jaydeep S. Deo for the petitioner Mr.G.S.Hegde for respondent no.1 Mr.A.I.Patel, A.G.P. for respondent nos.2 and 3 CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 28th NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent 1 and 2 and 3. 2. The petitioner in this Writ Petition is seeking declaration that Regulation 80 of the Bombay State Transport Employees' Service Regulations is ultra vires the Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset invited our attention to sub section 1 of section 45 of the Act and submitted that the respondent ttm 2 wp1876-11.doc Corporation may, with the previous sanction of the State Government, make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act and the Rules made thereunder, for the administration of the affairs of the Corporation. He then invited our attention to Regulation 80 which reads thus: "80. The Corporation may specify the acts of misconduct or omission which shall be liable to be treated as "acts of misconduct" or "minor lapses or delinquencies" and also prescribe a procedure for dealing with cases of acts of misconduct and minor lapses and delinquencies and shall appoint appropriate authorities to impose punishments and to hear appeals or order disciplinary action." 4. He submitted that the language of this regulation contemplates sub- delegation to the Corporation whereby powers are conferred on the Corporation to specify the acts of misconduct or omissions which are inconsistent with the provisions of section 45 of the Act. 5. We are unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no dispute that Regulations which contains the Regulation 80 also has been sanctioned by the State Government. From bare perusal of Regulation 80, it is clear that there is no sub-delegation as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Under this Regulation, the Corporation is given certain powers to specify the acts of misconduct or omission which would be liable to be treated as "acts of misconduct" or ttm 3 wp1876-11.doc "minor lapses or delinquencies", which, is in our opinion, does not amount to sub- delegation as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, challenge on this ground, in our opinion, fails. Petition deserves to be rejected. 6. Order accordingly. 7. In so far as other contentions are concerned, it is open to the petitioner to raise all these contentions in an appeal. There is no dispute that the petitioner has been dismissed from the services and so far he has not filed an appeal challenging his dismissal. If the petitioner has not filed appeal till this date, it would be open to the petitioner to file it within a period of four weeks from today, in which case the appellate authority shall deal with the appeal in accordance with law and without entering into an issue of limitation. 8. With these observations, petition is disposed of. (K.K. TATED, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.)