NORTHERN LOLAB SUMO STAND Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners claim to be registered association with J&K Transport Department under Sec. 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 read with Rule 180 and 181 of J&K Motor Vehicle Rules, 1991. Petitioner association is said to have initially comprised of 70 vehicles but with the passage of time, 34 more vehicles have been added to its fleet. In view of increase in number of vehicles, and due to paucity of place at Sumo Stand, wherefrom petitioner association is operating transport services and route from Kupwara to Khurhama and Warnow, on which the vehicles of petitioner association are plying, as averred by it in writ petition, petitioner association is now reluctant to grant membership to any new vehicle as the total membership of petitioner association has reached to number of 113. However, influential people, according to petitioner association, who purchase vehicles, force petitioner association to grant membership and when petitioner association decline, respondents use, by one or other means, to pressurise petitioner association, which affects earning of member vehicles of petitioner association and also creates indiscipline at the Sumo Stand in the main market of Kupwara because of huge rush of vehicles. Petitioners' gravamen is that respondents are interfering with the working of petitioner association at Lolab Sumo Stand at Kupwara and respondents off and on visit the stand of petitioner association at Kupwara and ask petitioner association to vacate the space so that they can accommodate some other association or group of vehicles, which are neither registered with Labour Department nor Transport Department. On the edifice of case set up petitioner association seek following relief:

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner states that the State and its instrumentalities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India are duty bound to act fairly, justly and reasonably. Learned counsel avers that petitioner association requested respondents various times that wondering vehicles may be dealt with under law, but respondents continued to extend threats to petitioner association to vacate the place determined for petitioner association and that since the action and inactions of respondents are arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory, as such, there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the respondents affect right of petitioner association to trade/business/profession, guaranteed under Article 19. He further asserts that by impugned action of respondents, petitioner association would be divested of the place wherefrom they operate the motor transport services and where they have employed various persons because of which the owners, drivers of the vehicles and the other people employed by petitioner association earn their livelihood, which would result in starvation of such people.