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 MAYUR KONDIRAM ADANE Digitally signed by MAYUR KONDIRAM ADANE Date: 2026.09.29 14:08:49 +0530 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 22nd 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 12th 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 22nd 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 14th 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