Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 602 (ALL)

RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL v. STATE OF U. P.

2002-04-23

M.KATJU, RAKESH TIWARI

body2002
M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned notification dated 15. 4. 2000 by which the Government notification dated 16. 4. 1999 has been rescinded. True copy of the impugned notification is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. ( 2 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) IT has been alleged in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the writ petition that the petitioners were granted inter-State permit Nos. 303. 304 and 305 of 1989. by the State Transport Authority, U. P. on 24. 10. 1989 on inter-State route known as Meerut-Chandlgarh via Baraut via Kandhia. Shamli, nanauta, Gangoh, Saharanpur, Sarsawa. Vamuna Nagar. Ambala route. It is stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the petitioners were operating transport services on this inter-State route when the approved scheme was published on 29. 5. 1993 by means of which the State government issued a notified scheme in respect of Delhi-Saharanpur and 38 other routes falling in Meerut and Dehradun region. True copy of this approved scheme is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A perusal of the same shows that now there is a total ban to the operation of any kind of operator existing or otherwise on this route. ( 4 ) IN paragraphs 7 and 8 of the writ petition, it is alleged that the financial condition of the State transport Undertaking was not good and it was not in a position to carry out effective and efficient as well as cheap transport service to the passengers in the region, causing considerable difficulties to the local travelling public. Hence realising the demand and need of the travelling public, the State Government issued a modification proposal by means of notification dated 16. 4. 1999 to modify the approved scheme vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioners permits were specified in this modification proposal to enable them to operate their buses on the route above mentioned. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition, it is stated that objections were filed to the same which were rejected on 11. 10. 1999 and the State Government approved the modification proposal in public interest. However, by the impugned notification dated 15. 4. 2000 the modification proposal dated 16. 4. 1999 was cancelled. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition, it is stated that objections were filed to the same which were rejected on 11. 10. 1999 and the State Government approved the modification proposal in public interest. However, by the impugned notification dated 15. 4. 2000 the modification proposal dated 16. 4. 1999 was cancelled. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition, it is stated that this was done without giving opportunity of hearing to the operators. In paragraph 13 of the writ petition, it is stated that the impugned notification was issued without following the procedure prescribed under Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988. It is alleged that the order dated 11. 10. 1999 was passed by the State Government after considering all the facts, and hence it was not in the public interest to issue the impugned notification. ( 5 ) IN paragraph 15 of the writ petition. It is alleged that once the modification proposal dated 16. 4. 1999, was approved on 11. 10. 1999 by the order of the State Government, the modification proposal dated 16. 4. 1999, had ceased to exist and hence there was no occasion to cancel the same. In paragraph 20 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioners were granted permits on 24. 10. 1989 and the permits continued to be renewed up to 23. 10,1999. The petitioners had moved renewal applications vide Annexure-5 and Annexure-6 to the writ petition. In paragraph 23 of the writ petition, it is stated that the State Government has granted exemption in favour of various other routs in U. P. to enable the private operators to operate on the same and hence there is discrimination against the petitioners. ( 6 ) SEVERAL impleadment applications and counter-affidavits have been filed in this case. A counter-affidavit has been filed by one Ramesh Chandra Sharma in support of the impleadment application on behalf of Sri Vinod Kumar Gupta and 72 others. In this Court-affidavit, the detailed background of the case has been given and we have perused the same. ( 6 ) SEVERAL impleadment applications and counter-affidavits have been filed in this case. A counter-affidavit has been filed by one Ramesh Chandra Sharma in support of the impleadment application on behalf of Sri Vinod Kumar Gupta and 72 others. In this Court-affidavit, the detailed background of the case has been given and we have perused the same. Reference has been made in particular to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ram Krishna Verma v. State of u. P. , 1992 (2) SCC 620 and Nisar Ahmad v. State of U. P. , 1994 Supp (3) SCC 460 and also to the decision in Gajraj Singh v. State of U. P. , 2001 (3) AWC 2002 (SC) : 2001 (5) SCC 762 . In ram Krishna Vermas case (supra), the Supreme Court cancelled all the permits which overlapped the route Delhi-Saharanpur or any of its portion. The petitioners permits overlapped the Delhi-Saharanpur route and hence they have also been quashed by the decision in Rani krishna Vermas case (supra ). In paragraph 40 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Krishna Vermas case (supra), the petitioners permits had also been quashed, as they were illegal, since the Meerut-Chandigarh route overlaps delhi-Saharanpur route, and hence It is alleged that the proposed modification dated 16. 4. 1999 was in view to circumvent the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Krishna Vermas case (supra), by which the petitioners permits had been quashed. In paragraph 41 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the answering respondents filed objections before the hearing authority on 3-7. 1999. 7. 9. 1999 vide Annexures-C. A. 2 and C. A. 3 to the counter-affidavit. ( 7 ) IN paragraph 55 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the hearing authority while passing its order dated 11. 10. 1999 did not consider the report of the State Transport Authority dated 8. 10. 1999, copy of which is Annexure-C. A. 8 nor did it consider the objections of the answering respondents. True copy of the order dated 11. 10. 1999 is Annexure-C. A. 9 to the counter-affidavit. Hence as stated in paragraph 56, the answering respondents approached the chief Minister on 6. 11. 10. 1999, copy of which is Annexure-C. A. 8 nor did it consider the objections of the answering respondents. True copy of the order dated 11. 10. 1999 is Annexure-C. A. 9 to the counter-affidavit. Hence as stated in paragraph 56, the answering respondents approached the chief Minister on 6. 11. 1999 and the Chief Minister holding the portfolio of Ministry of transport directed the answering respondents to make a representation which was made and "the chief Minister on that very date on 6. 11. 1999 called for a report from the State Transport authority vide Annexure-C. A. 10. The State Transport Authority called a report from the regional Transport Authority, Saharanpur, who submitted the same vide report dated 5. 11. 1999 vide Annexure-C. A. 11 to the counter-affidavit. ( 8 ) IN paragraph 59 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that since the matter required some investigation, a Committee was formed which submitted a report dated 28. 12. 1999 which was placed before the Transport Minister and the matter was placed before the Chief Minister who came to the conclusion that the proposed modification should be withdrawn. However, despite the recommendation and direction of the Chief Minister, the Transport Department was bent upon to extend the benefit of the proposed modification to the operators of the three routes only (petitioners ). ( 9 ) IN paragraph 65 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the Haryana Transport Commissioner issued a letter dated 22. 6. 1999 to the U. P. Government indicating that the modification cannot be done in respect of Meerut-Chandigarh route as this was covered by a reciprocal agreement. Under the reciprocal agreement, it is only the Haryana Transport Undertaking which can operate on this route and no permit could be granted by the State of U. P. Hence it is alleged that there can be no modification on the Meerut-Chandigarh route. A copy of the letter of Haryana State transport Authority to the State Transport Authority, U. P. dated 22/23. 6. 1999, is annexure-C. A. 13 to the counter-affidavit. ( 10 ) IN paragraph 70 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the modification proposal had been initiated on the basis of wrong facts and in conflict with the decision of the Supreme Court in ram Krishna Vermas case (supra ). 6. 1999, is annexure-C. A. 13 to the counter-affidavit. ( 10 ) IN paragraph 70 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the modification proposal had been initiated on the basis of wrong facts and in conflict with the decision of the Supreme Court in ram Krishna Vermas case (supra ). In paragraph 74 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that only the existing operators on the route can be exempted under the scheme proposed to be modified. In the instant case, the permits of the petitioners had been quashed by the judgment of the supreme Court in Ram Krishna Vermas case (supra) and hence they were no longer permit holders on the Meerut Chandigarh route. In paragraph 83 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the objections and written arguments filed by the answering respondents were not considered by the hearing authority nor was the report of the Transport Commissioner considered by him. When the material facts were brought to the notice of the State Government, it passed the impugned order and there is no illegality in the same. ( 11 ) SEVERAL other impleadment applications and counter-affidavits have been filed and we have perused the same. ( 12 ) A sketch map of the route in question is Annexure-C. A. 1 to the counter-affidavit of Ramesh chandra Sharma. A perusal of the sketch map shows that Meerut-Baraut-Shamli-Nanauta -Gangoh - Saharanpur-Yamuna Bridge-Chandigarh route falls partly on Delhi-Saharanpur route which had been finally notified. Hence the Supreme Court in Ram Krishna Vermas case (supra), rightly quashed the permits on this Meerut-Chandigarh route as the route partly overlapped delhi-Saharanpur route which had been notified. The petitioners permits having been quashed, it is obvious that the modification proposal dated 16. 4. 1999, proceeded on the misconception that the petitioners were holding permits on the Meerut-Chandigarh route but as rightly pointed by the respondents the petitioners were not permit holders on this route as their permits were quashed by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Krishna Vermas case (supra ). ( 13 ) SRI Dinesh Dwivedi. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the modification proposal dated 16. 4. 1999, had been approved on 11. 10. 1999, it could not be rescinded. ( 13 ) SRI Dinesh Dwivedi. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the modification proposal dated 16. 4. 1999, had been approved on 11. 10. 1999, it could not be rescinded. He has relied on the decision of this Court in Radha Krishna Sharma v. State of U. P. , 1998 (1) AWC 723 : AIR 1998 All 159 and the decision in Sumer Chandra Sharma v. State of U. P. , Writ petition No- 99 (MB) of 1993 of the Lucknow Bench of this Court dated 5. 9. 1. 995 against which the S. L. P. was rejected by the Supreme Court. In these decisions, the Division Benches of this court held that in view of the difference of language between Section 68e of the old Motor vehicles Act and Section 102 of the new Motor Vehicles Act, it is not necessary to publish the finalised modification scheme in the gazette. In our opinion, even If we agree with these division Bench decisions that will make no difference because as stated by us above, the modification proposal dated 16. 4. 1999 proceeded on a total misconception that the petitioners were permit holders on Meerut-Chandigarh route. ( 14 ) IN fact, since the petitioners permits have been cancelled by the Supreme Court judgment in ram Krishna Vermas case (supra), they were not valid permit holders on the said route. Hence, there was no question of approving the modification proposal which was based on a total misconception. Hence, it is not necessary for us to go into the question of mala fide or collusion which has been made by the respondents. The impugned order was, therefore, fully Justified and calls for no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Moreover as stated in paragraph 35 of the counter-affidavit of Ram Ujair Misra filed along with the impleadment application of gajraj Singh. there was an agreement between the U. P. Government and Haryana Government in which on Meerut-Chandigarh route only Haryana State Transport Undertaking buses may make two single rounds and there was no provision for grant of stage carriage permits by the U. P. Government on that route. ( 15 ) UNDER Section 88 (5) and (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act. ( 15 ) UNDER Section 88 (5) and (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988, as regards inter-State routes there has to be an agreement between the two State Governments to fix the number of permits which are proposed to be granted or countersigned which must be published in the official gazette and in the newspapers. There is no such agreement which enables the petitioners to ply on the route Chandigarh-Meerut. Also under the proviso to Section 100 (3) of the said Act, no scheme which relates to an inter-State route shall be deemed to be an approved scheme unless It has the previous approval of the Central Government. There is no approval by the Central government in respect of the route in question. Hence also, the petitioners cannot ply on the meerut-Chandigarh route. ( 16 ) IN these circumstances, it is not necessary to go into the various other facts and contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. ( 17 ) THERE is no force in this petition and connected petitions and they are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.