Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 63 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Hans Raj

1996-01-15

B.R.ARORA, P.C.JAIN

body1996
Honble ARORA, J. – This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.1.92, passed by Honble the Chief Justice by which Honble the Chief Justice allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-respondent and set-aside the seizure memo Annexure 2. (2). It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, wrongly held that the Transport Inspector has no power under the law or the Motor Vehicle Act to size the vehicle. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the respondent-petitioner, in contravention of the conditions of the permit granted to him under Sec. 63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to carry the marriage-party from Ajmer to Ahmedabad, was not entitled to carry a stranger passenger on charging the fare and the observation of the learned Single Judge that on the basis of the permit granted under Section 63(6) of the Act the seizure of the vehicle by the Transport Inspector on the ground that the petitioner-respondent was plying the vehicle on the national route, is wrong and incorrect. Learned counsel for the respondent petitioner, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by Honble the Chief Justice. (3). We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. (4). The respondent-petitioner was granted a temporary permit by the District Transport Officer, Ajmer, under Section 63(6) of the Act to carry the marriage party from Ajmer to Ahmedabad via Jaipur and the route allowed by the District Transport Officer was Jaipur to Ahmedabad (via Ajmer, Beawar, Udaipur, Ambaji to Ahmedabad and back). This permit was valid for the period from 31.12.88 to 3.1.89. The bus was checked by the Flying Squad of the District Transport Officer, Jaipur on 2.1.89 at 6.45 am.m and the checking squad found that the bus was carrying 25 passengers, out of whom four passengers were travelling from Udaipur to Jaipur and who were issued tickets by the conductor by charging Rs. 50/- from each of these passengers as fare. As the bus was carrying the passengers on charging the fare on a nationalised route from the different destination, which is clearly in contravention of the conditions of the permit, the bus, was, therefore, rightly seized. 50/- from each of these passengers as fare. As the bus was carrying the passengers on charging the fare on a nationalised route from the different destination, which is clearly in contravention of the conditions of the permit, the bus, was, therefore, rightly seized. It is an admitted fact that the permit, which was granted for bus No. RNZ 2151, was for carrying the marriage party and not for picking the passengers from different place to different destination. The permit under Section 63(6) of th Act was for an express purpose, i.e., carrying the marriage-party which did not authorise the passenger to be picked-up other than the marriage party, for consideration. The seizure of the vehicle by the District Transport Authority, which was an officer authorised under the Act, was, therefore, right as to condition of the permit was contravened by the petitioner-respondent. (5). The question, in the writ petition, was not whether the respondent No.1 (petitioner in the writ petition) had a right to ply the bus on the nationalised route but the actual controversy before the learned Single Judge was that : whether on the basis of the permit granted to the petitioner by the D.T.O., the petitioner was entitled to carrying a stranger passenger from different place who was not a member of the marriage party? By the permit the petitioner was permitted to carry only the marriage party and not the passengers. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, not right in holding that on the basis of the permit Ex.1 granted in favour of the petitioner, he was entitled to ply the bus on the nationalised route and to carry the passengers, also. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. (6). In the result, the appeal, filed by the appellant is allowed. The judgment dated 20.1.92, passed by Honble the Chief Judge is quashed and set-aside and the writ petition, filed by the petitioner-respondent, is dismissed.