Bombay High Court
RAFIQUE MUNIR SHAIKH PARTNER R J V M AUTO TAXIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court did not set aside the impugned order but directed the respondent authority to reconsider the petitioner's application in light of the changed circumstances.
Summary
The petitioner, RJVM Auto Taxi, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking the quashing of an order dated 29 May 2025 that rejected its application to be recognized as an authorized auto‑taxi fare‑meter testing and recalibration centre, alleging discrimination because other private entities had been granted such licences. The High Court noted that the impugned order was not infirm, but observed that subsequent facts – namely licences issued to private players like Hira Auto Garage and Rajesh Auto Rickshaw – constituted a change in circumstances. The Court held that the petitioner’s claim could be reconsidered by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Transport Authority in light of these changed facts, directing the Authority to decide the pending application within six weeks. No opinion on the merits of the application was expressed, and the petition was disposed with the direction to reconsider.
Issues considered
- What is the legality and propriety of the order rejecting the petitioner's application for recognition as an authorized meter testing centre?
- Whether the petitioner has been discriminated against in violation of principles of equality, given licences granted to other private entities?
- Whether the High Court can direct the respondent authority to reconsider the application in view of changed facts.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
- Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 89
Subjects
- Writ petition
- Article 226
- Motor Vehicles Act
- Section 89
- Discrimination
- Private entity
- Authorized meter testing centre
- Administrative law
- MMRTA
Judgment
Digitally signed
by MAYUR
MAYUR KONDIRAM
KONDIRAM ADANE
ADANE Date:
2026.09.29
14:08:49 +0530
37-WP-11345-2026 (C).doc
Mayur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11345 OF 2026
Rafique Munir Shaikh Partner
RJVM Auto Taxi ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of Maharashtra Thr Secretary And Ors ...Respondents
...
Adv. Ankit Lohia, a/w Adv. Kshitijh Madekar, Adv. Aimaan Shaikh,
for the Petitioner.
Adv. Neha S. Bhide, GP, Adv. O.A. Chandurkar, Addl. G.P., Adv. S.P.
Kamble, AGP, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
...
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.:
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader for the Respondent – State.
2. The instant Writ Petition is filed, inter alia, for the following
reliefs :-
“(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Certiorari and / or
any other appropriate writ of such nature under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, calling for the records and
proceedings pertaining to the Impugned Decision dated on
29th May 2025 pursuant to the meeting held on 22nd May
1/5
37-WP-11345-2026 (C).doc
2025 taken by Respondent No.2, and after examining and
considering the legality, validity and propriety, correctness
thereof, be pleased to set aside and quash the Impugned
Decision.
(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of
mandamus or any other similar and appropriate writ
directing reconsideration of the Petitioner's application for
recognition as an authorised Auto-Taxi Fare Meter testing
and recalibration centre for the Vasai-Virar region, in
accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and the
criteria/guidelines reflected in the minutes of meeting dated
15th October 2016, and to pass an order and take
appropriate steps to recognize the Petitioner as an
authorized meters testing and recalibration centre for the
Vasai region;
[
(c) In the alternative to prayer (a) and (b), this Hon'ble Court
be pleased issue a Writ of mandamus or any other similar
and appropriate writ and direct the Respondent No. 2 to
disclose the name, date of appointment, approval region,
and all such other details of all such private entities who
have been granted approval and have been appointed as
authorized meters testing and recalibration centres within
the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Transport Authority region.
(d) In the alternative to prayer clause (a) and (b), this
Hon'ble Court be pleased issue a Writ of mandamus or any
other similar and appropriate writ and direct Respondent
No. 2 to pass an order and take appropriate steps and
initiate such proceedings as may be required under law in
accordance with Impugned Decision dated 29th May 2025
and revoke permissions, authorisations, approvals, or any
approval of such nature granted to private entities as
disclosed in accordance with prayer clause (c)”
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, submits that
pursuant to the order dated 8th May 2025 passed in Writ Petition
No. 6005 of 2025, a meeting was convened on 22 nd May 2025 and
an order was passed on 29th May 2025 by the Respondent No. 2 –
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Transport Authority (“Impugned
2/5
37-WP-11345-2026 (C).doc
Order”), wherein the Petitioner’s Application for recognition as a
meter testing center was rejected, on the premise of being a private
player/entity. However, liberty was accorded to the Petitioner to file
an Appeal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against
the said order.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that while passing
the Impugned Order, the Respondent No. 2 - Authority also
acknowledged that if any wrong/error had been committed
previously in this regard, then the Respondent No. 2 - Authority
shall take appropriate action. He submits that despite such a
categorical finding being recorded, licences have been granted to
private players/entities in the year 2023 were subsequently
renewed, as evidenced, illustratively, by a Certificate dated 12 th
September 2026, issued by Hira Auto Garage and Spare Parts,
which has been submitted as part of the Compilation of
Documents, placed before us today.
5. Reliance has also been placed upon the certificate of another
private player/entity, namely Rajesh Auto Rickshaw Taxi Meter
Works. The said Certificate under Order No.
RTA/THN/ORDER/2021/2438 was issued on 09th March 2021,
and a subsequent testing took place on 22 nd September 2026. On
the basis of this, it is contended that permission is being accorded
3/5
37-WP-11345-2026 (C).doc
even to such private players/entities to install/engage in
recalibrated meters and that the Petitioner, has, thus, been
subjected to discrimination.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the Petitioner confines his
relief to prayer clause (b), and prays that the Respondent -
Authorities be directed to decide the Application dated 14 th
December 2021 and revisit the matter in light of these subsequent
events whereby such licence is extended to private players/entities
to prejudice the Petitioner.
7. Considering the factual situation as emerged before us, we
find no infirmity in the Impugned Order which would warrant
interference by this Court. However, the record reveals that there
are changed facts and circumstances where, on the one hand, the
Respondent No. 2 - Authority while passing the Impugned Order
took a view that if any approvals has been erroneously granted to
similar private players/entities, then it would take appropriate
action, and on the other hand, it has been brought on record that
the licence granted to a private player/entity in 2023 has been
accorded up to 12th September 2026, in the case of Hira Auto
Garage and Spare Parts (supra).
8. In such changed circumstances, we find that the claim of the
Petitioner can be reconsidered by the Respondent Authorities. The
4/5
37-WP-11345-2026 (C).doc
Application dated 14th December 2021 (Exhibit ‘C’ to the Petition)
shall accordingly be considered by the Respondent - Authorities in
light of the changed facts and circumstances on its own merits and
in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date
of uploading of this order.
9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the matter.
10. With the aforesaid direction, the instant Writ Petition stands
Disposed Of.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
5/5
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.