Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 49 (JK)

Western Bus Service v. State

2007-04-16

NISAR AHMAD KAKRU

body2007
1. At the very outset it calls for a mention that inter alia the writ petition questions the permission granted to the respondent No.6 which dates back to 22nd of June, 2006 alleging it to be violative of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act but during the course of the argument the learned counsel has given up the challenge, therefore, need not be addressed to. Thus the controversy restricts to the challenge that the statutory authority cannot grant a Stage Carrier Permit unless Petitioner-Western Bus Association Baramulla is heard. On the said assumption a restraint is sought to be placed on the Regional Transport Officer Srinagar-Respondent No. 4 from issuing the permit. The relief is founded on sub section 2 of section 71 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 extracted hereunder: "71. Procedure of Regional Transport Authority in considering application for stage carriage permit. (1) A Regional Transport Authority shall, while considering an application for a stage carriage permit, have regard to the objects of this Act. (2) A Regional Transport Authority shall refuse to grant a stage carriage permit if it appears from any time-table furnished that the provisions of this Act relating to the speed at which vehicles may he driven are likely to be contravened: Provided that before such refusal an opportunity shall be given to the applicant to amend the time-table so as to conform to the said provisions. " 2. A plain reading of the section aforementioned makes it clear that it relates to the speed at which a vehicle has to be driven and the timetable proposed should not be in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The provision extracted above envisages a remedy before the Authority which has granted the permission. It provides further that an application for grant of Stage Carriage Permit cannot be rejected outrightly but an opportunity has to be granted to the applicant aspiring for permit. Thus section prevents arbitrary rejection of the applications of the new entrants but it does not enshrine an opportunity of being heard to the existing operators before granting permission to the new entrants. 3. Thus section prevents arbitrary rejection of the applications of the new entrants but it does not enshrine an opportunity of being heard to the existing operators before granting permission to the new entrants. 3. Exceptions apart the drivers aim at taking lead over each other in picking up more and more passengers to make more and more income resulting in conversion of routes into racing grounds exposing the lives of the public to danger which is sought to be prevented by the law makers by dint of section 71 (2) of the Act imposing limit on the speed of the Vehicles. Proviso thereto on the one hand strikes at the arbitrary refusal and on the other speaks of an opportunity to the applicant to amend the timetable so as to conform it to the provisions of the Act but does not suggest right of objections or opportunity of hearing to the existing operators. Viewed thus, reliance by the learned counsel on sub section (2) of section 71 is wholly misplaced. More so, the said provision of law does not even remotely suggest an opportunity of hearing to the existing operators against a proposed new stage carriage permit. No other interpretation is possible. 4. Next it was contended that the Regional Transport Officer has no power to change the timetable. To appreciate the contention reference to clause (v) sub section 2 of section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act becomes imperative, which reads: "72. Grant of stage carriage permits: (2) The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage-carriage permit, may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified description and may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely: (i) ...... Grant of stage carriage permits: (2) The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage-carriage permit, may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified description and may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely: (i) ...... (v) that the stage carriage shall be operated within such margins of deviation from the approved time-table as the Regional Transport Authority may from time to time specify:" A bare reading of the provision clearly admits power of the Authority to deviate from the approved time table from time to time leaving no confusion on the score that the authority is within its powers to modify the timetable in case of conflict in plying of the vehicles, obviously apart from the remedy of the appeal and revision the petitioner has a right to approach the authority for amendment of the timetable, if cause accrues, conversely, he has rushed to the Court before grant of permission apparently aiming at monopoly of the trade so as to escape competition and if allowed to succeed it will be detrimental to the interests of the public, for, it is bound to work as an impediment to the efficient transport system. 5. It may not be inapt to say that more operators mean healthy competition and efficient transport system. After all a commuter has to pay his hard earned money. He has no interest to part with it to help a transport concern to create a monopoly. A transport concern cannot claim a right to be on the route to the exclusion of others creating monopoly in the field, forcing the commuter public to keep standing or on the rooftops of the overcrowded buses. More buses are to the convenience of the public and restriction would mean adversely affecting the public interest, therefore, liberalized policy a necessity. Too many operators on a route is in the interest of the public because competition will help to get the best service. There being no restriction by law on the number of the vehicles to be allowed to ply the petitioner has no right to register any grouse. 6. Too many operators on a route is in the interest of the public because competition will help to get the best service. There being no restriction by law on the number of the vehicles to be allowed to ply the petitioner has no right to register any grouse. 6. Adverting to the contention that the grant of more stage carriage permits will clash with the plying timings of the petitioners vehicles an obligation is cast upon the petitioner to show that the timetable of new stage carriage permits will be prejudicial to his rights which raises a question as to what timetable is going to be given out by the Regional Transport Officer and who are the new entrants and how their timetable shapes, admittedly, the events are yet to occur. In the given facts it is quite impossible for the petitioner to say anything about the time table of the transport concerns those may join the field which makes it very clear that the writ petition is founded on a mere apprehension. Thus premature and not maintainable. 7. For the reasons detailed in the preceding paras the writ petition fails and is dismissed along with CMP. No order as to costs.