SUMER CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners in this petition are joint-holders of regular stage carriage no. 153 covered by vehicle no. UMU-9922 on Saharanpur-Muzaffarnagar via Gagalhari-Deoband Bawanhari and allied routes.

(2.) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the grant of six temporary permits to opposite parties nos. 4 to 9 on the Saharanpur-Muzaffarnagar route by the Secretary of the State Transport Authority who has also been arrayed personally as opposite party no. 3 to the writ petition.

(3.) COMING now to the challenge of validity of Rule 44-A as aforesaid, we find from a perusal of the writ petition that there is no whisper in the petition as to how the validity of that provision is being challenged. In our opinion, for challenging the validity of a provision, necessary foundation has got to be laid first in the writ petition and the same cannot be gone into in abstract or vacuum as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sant Lai Bharti v. State of Punjab, AIR 1988 SC 485. In the circumstances we decline to entertain the aforesaid plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners.