Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 390 (JHR)

SUBODH PRASAD v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

2003-03-26

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2003
Judgment : S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS application has been preferred by the petitioner against the decision dated 19th/20th Feb. 2001 of the State Transport Authority, Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, a condition has been imposed that a person cannot be granted more than one permit for the same route. ( 2 ) THE only question arises for determination is whether a person can be granted more than one permit for the same route or not. ( 3 ) BEFORE deciding the issue, it is necessary to notice the relevant facts, which are mentioned hereunder. The petitioner is engaged in business of transport and owes a fleet of bus which ply on various routes within the State of Jharkhand as well as on the Inter-State route covering the neighbouring States. In the present case, the dispute relates to the route : Tata to Dhanbad via Purulia, an Inter-State route. As per law, concurrence by way of agreement has been taken by the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) from the State of West Bengal for grant of permission in the route in question. Altogether, four permanent permits have already been granted for the route in question, one of which in favour of petititioner Subodh Prasad. There were number of litigations at the time of grant of temporary permits wherein certain observations were made by this Court, but it is not necessary to discuss all these facts, the issue being a question of law for determination. The petitioner had a temporary permit for the route, in question, which was going to lapse. Petitioner asked for a regular permit, the file routed from the bottom, when certain queries were made. The petitioner, fulfilled all the requirements and also bought a new bus of a latest model of 2002 with Registration No. JH-01 B-1068 to ply it on the route, in question, on grant of permit. ( 4 ) WHEN the matter was taken up by the State Transport Authority, Jharkhand, in its proceeding dated 19th/20th Feb. 2001, it decided not to grant more than one permit to a person for the same route. In effect the petitioner having permit for the route, in question, another permit of the same route was denied. ( 5 ) THE petitioner alleged mala fide against respondent No. 5, Surendra Sharma, a Section Officer who has appeared and denied the allegation. 2001, it decided not to grant more than one permit to a person for the same route. In effect the petitioner having permit for the route, in question, another permit of the same route was denied. ( 5 ) THE petitioner alleged mala fide against respondent No. 5, Surendra Sharma, a Section Officer who has appeared and denied the allegation. ( 6 ) THE respondent No. 6 appeared and supported the case of the petitioner. ( 7 ) THE respondent Nos. 2 to 5 while opposed the prayer, defended its decision dated 19th/20th Feb. 2001 restraining grant of more than one permit to one person for the same route. ( 8 ) THE procedure to grant stage carriage permit has (sic) 1988 for short ). Previously, there was a bar to grant more than five stage carriage permits to any individual or more than ten stage carriage permit to any Company under sub-section (4) to Section 71 of the M. V. Act, 1988, which reads, as under : "section 71 (4) : "a Regional Transport Authority shall not grant more than five stage carriage permits to any individual or more than ten stage carriage permits to any company (not being a State Transport Undertaking ). " the prohibition aforesaid was lifted in the year 1994 when sub-section (4) to Section 71 of M. V. Act, 1988 was omitted by Section 23 of Act 54 of 1994 w. e. f. 14th Nov. 1994. Thereby, since 14th Nov. 1994, there is no prohibition to grant more than five stage carriage permits to an individual. ( 9 ) IN almost a similar case before the Supreme Court in S. V. Sivaswami Servai v. Hafez Motor Transport (Firm), AIR 1991 SC 911 , permit was granted to one without considering the claim of others on the ground that the others had been granted permits on other routes in the same sitting. The Supreme Court held such decision untenable, with further observations that the permit can be granted assessing the comparative merits of all the applicants. Even under the unamended provision for grant of stage carriage permit i. e. sub-section (4) to Section 71, there was no bar to grant more than one permit to any individual for the same route. The Supreme Court held such decision untenable, with further observations that the permit can be granted assessing the comparative merits of all the applicants. Even under the unamended provision for grant of stage carriage permit i. e. sub-section (4) to Section 71, there was no bar to grant more than one permit to any individual for the same route. The only bar was to grant more than five stage carriage permits to an individual for the same route but after the amendment since 15th Nov. 1994 even there is no such bar to grant more than five carriage stage permits to any individual, if otherwise eligible and succeeds. Therefore, the question is answered in "affirmative, and against the respondents. ( 10 ) IN view of the finding aforesasid, the decision of the State Transport Authuority, Jharkhand, Ranchi dated 19th/20th Feb. 2001 imposing restrictions to grant more than one carriage permit to an individual for the same route being arbitrary, illegal and against the provisions of the M. V. Act, 1988, it is set aside. ( 11 ) ). The case is remitted with directions to the respondent-State Transport Authority, Jharkhand, Ranchi to reconsider the case of the petitioner and others for grant of stage carriage permit for the route, in question, within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed with aforesaid observations and directions. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .