Case: Shri Vijay Baburao Thakar &amp; Others Vs. State of Maharashtra &amp; Others

1. The Pune Municipal Corporation and Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation are constituted under the provisions of the Bombay Provisional Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as BPMC Act). Pune and Pimpri Chinchwad are two cities, which are adjoining to each other and both the Pune Municipal Corporation and Pimpri Chinchwad Corporation have constituted transport undertakings under the BPMC Act for the purpose of regulating the road transport. In 1979, a Committee was constituted pursuant to the directions given by the Apex Court which is knows as Bhurelal Committee. Several other committees were also formed and they had unanimously recommended the merger of the two Transport Undertakings of the two Corporations. Accordingly, both the Municipal Corporations passed resolutions to consider the manner and the method of the merger of the two Transport Undertakings. The Committee accordingly submitted a report to the Government by their letter dated 6.6.2005.2. The Government accepted in principle the said recommendation and granted approval of merger of two Municipal Corporations. It constituted a Committee of high ranking officers under the Chairmanship of Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) to get recommendations in respect of the administrative structure and principles of financial working of the merge to the Committee accordingly submitted its recommendation and both Corporations also passed resolutions for the merger of the two undertakings and thereafter, the Government gave its approval to the merger of two undertakings by forming a company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 vide Government Resolution dated 19th April, 2007. 3. Being aggrieved by the said decision and Government Resolution issued by the Government, both the Petitioners have filed the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Reasoning: 6. In our view, the submissions made by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners cannot be accepted. It is an admitted position that both PMT and PCMT were separate transport undertakings. PMT which is a transport undertaking of Pune Municipal Corporation was started in March, 1950 and transport undertaking of Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation was started in 1974. The functions of both these undertakings was to provide public bus transport services within twin cities of Pune and Pimpri Chinchwad. It was noticed that both undertakings have bus routes on various roads within the Pimpri Pune and consequently many routes were common, as result of which the expenditure for these common routes which was incurred by PMT and PCMT were simultaneously incurred by both these undertakings.Perusal of the aforesaid Government Resolution discloses that a policy decision has been taken by the Government after taking into consideration the resolutions, which were passed by the two Corporations and recommendations made by various Expert Committees from time to time. The decision has been taken in view of the demand made by the public from time to time and in public interest. The constitution of the Board of Directors of the company clearly discloses that all responsible and high ranking officers of the Government and the PMC and PCMC as also the Director of Central Institute of Road Transport and General Manager of both PMT and PCMC are included in the list of Board of Directors. Simultaneously three Corporators from the Pune Municipal Corporation and two Corporators from the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporations have also been included in the Board of Directors.So far as grievance regarding disposal of the properties of the two undertakings is concerned, in the reply filed by the Respondents, it has been stated that that procedure which is laid down under BPMC Act for the disposal of assets shall be taken as prescribed under the said Act. The Company already has been established and has started functioning and in view of the statement made by the Respondents in their affidavit the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in this respect cannot be accepted.