Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (3) TMI 657

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt No.2 had applied for grant of permit for the route Palampur to Jaisinhpur, Jaisinhpur to Baijnath and Jaisnhpur to Palampur, Appellant No.3 had applied for the route Indora to Kaaza, Maclodganj to Mandi and Damtal to Manali. 3. Fourth respondent, who is said to have a political connection being a leader of Congress Party, approached the State Chief Minister directly by a letter, which reads thus :- The Hon ble Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla Subject :- Application regarding route permit Hon ble Sir, With due regards, it is requested that I have previously requested for the route permit, but I was not given any route permit in the meeting of RTA. I have come to the Oakover and I have again stated that no buses are running on the route and still then I was not given any route. It is, therefore, requested that the following route may kindly be granted in my favour. Baijnath \026 Tikkari \026 Panchrukhi \026 6RT. This route was notified, but not issued to any one. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Rajinder Rana) Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangara 4. The said letter was addressed on the letter head of Mandal Congress Committee, Rajgir Panchukhi, Hi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed only on the instructions of the higher authorities and not in accordance with law. 9. By reason of the impugned judgment the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellants, stating :- It is the admitted case of the parties that the route in respect (of) which permit has been granted to respondent No.4 is different from the routes in respect of which applications have been made by the writ petitioners. Therefore, in our considered view the writ petitioners can have no grievance against respondent No.4. Now the Directorate of Transport, Shimla, vide communicaton dated 4th January, 2005 (annexure R-1) with a view to implementing the provision of Section 68(3)(ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act has conveyed the decision of the State Government to all the Regional Transport Officers that all the applications pending with the Regional Transport Authority for grant of route permit, except those which are in respect of 100% exclusively rural routes or 109 notified routes, are to be deemed to have been rejected. In view of the issuance of this communication by the Directorate of Transport, Shimla, we direct respondent No.3, i.e.. Regional Transport A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for control of transport vehicles. Section 66 provides for necessity for permits in terms whereof a statutory embargo has been placed to the effect that no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use thereof as a transport vehicle, save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority 16. Section 67 of the Act empowers the State Government to control road transport having regard to the factors enumerated therein. Section 68 provides for constitution of the State Transport Authority. An application for grant of Stage Carriage Permit, as envisaged under Section 69 of the Act, is to be filed in terms of Section 70 thereof, detailing the particulars specified therein. Section 71 provides for the procedures to be followed by the Regional Transport Authority in considering application for stage carriage permit. Section 72 empowers the Regional Transport Authority to grant stage carriage permit in respect of any route or the area specified in the application. The other provisions contained in the said Chapter provide for the mode and manner for dealing with the applications for grant o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at behalf. This itself goes to show that prior thereto no proper application was filed before the Regional Transport Authority. Such an interference on the part of any authority upon whom the Act does not confer any jurisdiction, is wholly unwarranted in law. It violates the constitutional scheme. It interferes with the independent functioning of a quasi judicial authority. A permit, if granted, confers a valuable right. An applicant must earn the same. In D. Nataraja Mudaliar vs. The State Transport Authority, Madras : AIR 1979 SC 114 = (1978) 4 SCC 290 this Court held : 9. The Authority must, remember that a permit holder has an ordinary right of renewal unless it is shown that outweighing reasons of public interest lead to a contrary result. Permits are not bounty but right, restricted reasonably by the Motor Vehicles Act. The application of the respondent No.4, therefore, was to be entertained alongwith other similarly situated persons. 20. In the matter of grant of permit to individual applicant, the State has no say. The Chief Minister or any authority, other than the statutory authority, therefore, could not entertain an application for grant of permit nor coul .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion for grant of permit before the Chief Minister directly. The Chief Minister could not have entertained the same nor usurp the function of the Regional Transport Authority. 25. Similarly, the respondent No.2 committed a serious illegality in forwarding the same to the respondent No.3 with the purported recommendations of the Chief Minister. 26. We also fail to understand as to how an independent quasi judicial body, like the respondent No.3, could affirm an affidavit together with the State. Its duty before the High Court, in response to the rule issued by it, was to place the facts as borne out from the records. It was not supposed to take any stand one way or the other. It had no business to defend the State or the Chief Minister. 27. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is allowed with costs. The impugned judgment is set aside. As a limited notice was issued, we need not pass any consequential order which is within the realm of the Regional Transport Authority. 28. We impose a cost of Rupees one lakh upon the State which may be paid to the National Legal Services Authority. The said amount may be deposited within a period of four weeks failing which it will .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates