Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 260 (GAU)

Eastern Bus Owners Association v. State of Assam

1998-08-29

J.N.SARMA, P.G.AGARWAL

body1998
J. N. Sarma, J. — This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 7.4.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 161 of 1996. 2. A civil rule was filed by the Eastern Owners Association, Dibrugarh represented by its Vice President praying the relief as follows : Declare the act of respondents illegal and unconstitutional and as to why the clause in the order dated 6.6.95 (Annexure IV) requiring the counter signature of Sibsagar and Jorhat Regional Transport Authority etc should not be quashed and for a direction to the respondents to frame suitable rules in compliance with section 96 (2) (xi) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Annexure IV to the civil rule is quoted below : “Govt. of Assam : Office of the Secretary : Regional Transport Authority ORDER In the interest of travelling public periodic stage carriage permit No.26/D/92 granted in favour of Shri Dilu Borgohain of Khalihamari, Dibrugarh in respect of Bus No.AS-06/9415 on AMC Dibrugarh Athebari Khowangghat Salighat-Lakowa is temporarily extended upto Jorhat via Nazira-Amguri-Mariani as an experimental basis. This permission is valid from 6.6.95 to 5.9.95 or until further orders which ever is earlier. Subject to counter signature of Sibsagar and Jorhat. Sd/- Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Dibrugarh Region,” There is a clause that this permit is valid subject to counter signature of Sibsagar and Jorhat. 3. Section 88 (1) of the Act as follows : “88. Validation of permits for use outside region in which granted : (1) Except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been counter signed by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region, and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unless counter signed by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned : Provided-that a goods carriage permit, granted by the Regional Transport. Authority of any one region, for any area in any other region or regions within the same State, shall be valid in that area without the counter signature of the Regional Transport Authority of the other region or of each of the other regions concerned: Provided further that where both the starting point and the terminal point of a route are situate within the same State, but part of such route lies in any other State and the length of such part does not exceed sixteen Kilometres, the permit shall be valid in the other State in respect of that part of the route which is in that other State notwithstanding that such permit has not been counter signed by the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority of that other State: Provided also that: (a) where a motor vehicle covered by a permit granted in one State is to be used for the purpose of defence in any other State, such vehicle , shall display a certificate, in such form, and issued by such authority, as the Central Govt. may by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, to the affect that the vehicle shall be used for the period specified therein exclusively for the purpose of defence, and (b) any such permit shall be valid in that other State notwithstanding that such permit has not been countersigned by the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority of that other State, So, the section itself provides that a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in other region unless the permit has been counter signed by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region, so the clause inserted in Annexure IV is valid. 4. 4. Section 88 (1) came up for consideration before the Apex Court in AIR 1966 SC 455 (M/s Bundelkhand Motor Transport Co vs. Behari Lal Chaurasia & another) where in paragraph 4 it has been laid down as follows : “Except as may be otherwise prescribed, as inter, regional permit by a Regional Transport Authority in any region, is not valid unless the permit is counter signed by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region,” It has further pointed out in paragraph 10 as follows : “The permit being a regional permit and not an inter-regional permit/there was no part of the route for which the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, could by counter signing the permit extend it so as to make it operative within the Rewa Region. In any event as one Regional Transport Authority is not competent to sit in judgment over the discretion exercised by any other Regional Transport Authority upon whom the power is conferred in regard to a particular matter under the statute, the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, granting counter signature in the teeth of the earlier order of the Jabalpur Authority was invalid.” 5. Section 96 of the Act gives the power to the State Govt. to make rules for the purposes of this Chapter under the Act. Section 96 is in Chapter V of the Act and it relates to control of transport vehicles, section 96 (xi) provides as follows: “(xi) The conditions subjectto which and the extent to which, a permit granted in one region shall be valid in another region within the State without counter signature.” 6. The grievance of the petitioner Association is that no rules having been framed by the State Govt. and the petitioner is subjected to harassment and as such, this Court should give appropriate direction to the authority to frame the rules. 7. The rule making power is within the domain of another authority and this Court normally is not expected to issue a direction to the authority to frame such a rules, if otherwise also the authority can conduct its business or affairs. But at the same time if it is alleged that absence of rules leads to arbitrariness and/or to fanciful state of affairs or leads to despotic dealing the rule of law is to be enforced to avoid arbitrariness of executive action. But at the same time if it is alleged that absence of rules leads to arbitrariness and/or to fanciful state of affairs or leads to despotic dealing the rule of law is to be enforced to avoid arbitrariness of executive action. It should be borne in mind that absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which the whole constitutional system is based on. The rule of law means that decision should be made by application of known principle and rules and in general such decision should be predictable and otherwise a citizen should know where he is. If a decision is taken without any principle or any rule, it is unpredictable and such decision is that antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with rules and law. The rule of law has freed a man from any unlimited discretion of a despotic ruler. Where discretion is absolute men has always suffered. A decision of an authority must be governed by rules, not by humour. It must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful. In order to avoid this short of topsy-turvy situation, though we refrain ourselves from issuing a direction to the authority, yet, we hope and trust that the authority shall bear in mind the above observations and shall frame a rule as required under section 96 (xi) of the Act within a reasonable time. 8. With the above observations, we dispose of the writ appeal. It is made clear that we are not interfering with the decision of the learned Single Judge, save and except as indicated above. We have heard Sri DC Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant and Sri BP Bora, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam for the respondents. We make no order as to costs.