THANGJAM IBOMCHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.Kh.Tarunkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and also Mr.M.Hemchandra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 as well as Mr.Jagat, learned GA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

(2.) THE writ petitioners (five in numbers) are the owners of vehicles (Tata Wingers). The respondent Nos.1 to 4 are keeping the applications, filed by the writ petitioners for contract carriage permit or for extension of the terms of the Contract Carriage Permit (temporary) for plying their vehicles in the route Imphal -Pallel Via BSR, for an indefinite period for amongst other reasons that (1) the plying of the vehicles (Tata Wingers) of the petitioners in the route i.e. Imphal -Pallel and vice versa is objected by the members of respondent No.5 (Indo Burma Sugnu Road Bus Owners Welfare Association) having only two buses plying in the said route, (2) amicable settlement has not yet reached between the petitioners on one side and members of respondent No.5 on the other side regarding plying of vehicles of the petitioners in the said route, (3) the State respondents are yet to finalise the decision regarding plying of vehicles of the petitioners in the said route.

(3.) UNDER Section 2 (7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ""contract carriage" means a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward and is engaged under a contract, whether expressed or implied, for the use of such vehicle as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned therein and entered into by a person with a holder of a permit in relation to such vehicle or any person authorized by him in this behalf on a fixed or an agreed rate or sum.