Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1369 (RAJ)

Nirmal Kumar v. STAT

2005-05-09

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-A reciprocal transport agreement between the States of Rajasthan and Haryana arrived at in the joint meeting held on 5th, 6th , 7th and 8th of February, 1968 at Chandigarh. By reciprocal agreement referred above the Government of Rajasthan and the Government of Haryana agreed to implement certain terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement with view to encourage movement of transport vehicles on inter-state routes. Para 9 of the agreement pertains to taxation which reads as under:-"Taxation (i) Thereshall be single point motor vehicles taxation in respect of vehicles covered by all classes of substantive permits including temporary permits granted for a period not less than 4 months pending consideration of their applications within the agrees quota, subject to the condition that such permits are countersigned by the respective transport authorities." 2. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of State carriage permit on the route Bhadra to Hisar via Adampur under the reciprocal transport agreement referred above. The application submitted by the petitioner was rejected by Regional Transport Authority by its resolution dated 23.01.1995 as the petitioner failed to furnish necessary particulars and details of the vehicle sought to be plied on the route concerned. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the resolution dated 23.01.1995 preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The appeal was accepted by the Tribunal vide its order dated 16.09.1995. The Tribunal by order dated 16.09.1995 set aside the resolution dated 23.01.1995 and ordered to grant a State carriage permit to the petitioner for a period of five years under the reciprocal transport agreement dated 5th to 8th of February, 1968. 4. The grievance of the petitioner with regard to the order dated 16.09.1995 passed by learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal is that the Tribunal while granting the said permit imposed a condition of two point taxation which according to the petitioner is contrary to Clause (9) of the reciprocal agreement. 5. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner applied for State carriage permit under the reciprocal agreement of 1968, therefore, State carriage permit could be granted to him only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement. The Tribunal was having no authority to impose a condition beyond the terms and conditions prescribed under the reciprocal agreement. 6. Heard the Counsel for the parties. 7. The Tribunal was having no authority to impose a condition beyond the terms and conditions prescribed under the reciprocal agreement. 6. Heard the Counsel for the parties. 7. It is the position admitted between the parties that the petitioner submitted an application for grant of State carriage permit under the reciprocal agreement of 1968. The application submitted by the petitioner was rejected by Regional Transport Authority by resolution dated 23.01.1995 on a ground which was held bad in eye of law by the Tribunal. The Tribunal accordingly ordered for grant of State carriage permit to the petitioner for a period of five years. According to the reciprocal agreement of 1968 a permit holder is required to be subjected for single point motor vehicle taxation in respect of vehicles covered by all classes of substantive permits including temporary permits granted for a period not less than 4 months pending consideration of their applications within agreed quota subject to the condition that such permit is countersigned by respective transport authorities. The permit was granted to the petitioner under the reciprocal agreement of 1968, therefore, the tax required to be charged shall be governed in accordance with Clause (9) of the reciprocal agreement. Any condition beyond and in excess to the conditions mentioned in the reciprocal agreement could not have been imposed by the Tribunal while granting State carriage permit. A State carriage permit granted under the reciprocal agreement of 1968 must require to be confined to the terms and conditions of that agreement. The Tribunal while imposing a condition of two point taxation erred as the Clause (9) of the agreement provides only for single point motor vehicle taxation. 8. Accordingly the order dated 16.09.1995 passed by learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal to the extent it imposes a condition of double point motor vehicle taxation is bad in eye of law and, therefore, the same is quashed to that extent. 9. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.