CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2003) 03 JH CK 0116

Md. Talib Siddiquee vs Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 31 March 2003 · Citation: (2003) 3 JCR 154

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tapen Sen, J
CASE NUMBER
CWJC No. 2453 of 1996
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 390 words

Tapen Sen, J.—Heard Mrs. Jaya Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents Corporation.

2.

During the course of arguments. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the matter relating to revival of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation is being monitored by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India and certain orders from time to time are being passed in relation thereto. He has further stated that in that view of the matter and also taking into consideration the order dated 16.4.2001 passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, this Court should not pass any order inconsistent with the orders of the Apex Court. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents has produced the said order dated 16.4.2001 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7290 for perusal of this Court and it reads as follows :--

"Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

Issue notice to State of Jharkhand.

Inasmuch as this Court has been monitoring the entire scheme to be implemented in relation to the reorganization of Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and issuing directions and now more than one case is involved in it, we think it appropriate for the High Courts not to pass any orders inconsistent with the order made by this Court. In the circumstances, if any order has been passed for withholding the salary of the Administrator of the said Corporation, the same shall stand stayed. It is also made clear that the High Court of Jharkhand or High Court of Patna shall not pass any order inconsistent with the order made by this Court."

3.

Taking into consideration the aforesaid directions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India and also the statements of Mr. P.P.N. Roy to the effect that the matter is being monitored by the Apex Court and orders are being passed from time to time, this Court refrains from giving any positive direction in favour of the petitioner at the stage, save and except to record that if the petitioner approaches the Respondents Corporation and makes an Application, the respondents shall act strictly in terms of the orders that may be found to be consistent with the orders of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India.

4.

With the aforesaid observation and direction this writ petition stand disposed off.