Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1273 (PAT)

Sushil Singh v. State Of Bihar

2008-08-29

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD, R.M.LODHA

body2008
Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 7th January, 2008 passed by the single judge, whereby he allowed the Writ petition filed by the present respondent no.5 and quashed and set aside the permit issued to the present appellant for plying the minibus having capacity of 33 passengers from Gaya to Dumaria. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, few relevant points may be noticed by us. On 11th December, 2006, Magadh Regional Transport Authority, Gaya sanctioned the time table proposed by the appellant and granted him permit for the route Gaya to Dumaria via Cherki, Sherghaty, Imamganj, Maigra. The permit was granted for one trip daily of the vehicle bearing no. BR-2F-8865 (minibus). The distance between Gaya to Dumaria is said to be 82 Kilometers which overlaps nationalized route of 32 Kilometers. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the present appellant, permit holder. The present respondent no.5 ( for short, the petitioner1) approached this court, by filing a writ petition challenging the grant of permit to the permit holder on the ground that no permit of minibus could be granted to ply on long distance route. That 82 Kilometers was long c istance was sought to be established by relying upon the proceedings of the Magadh Regional Transport Authority, Gaya that took place on 7th February, 2006, wherein a decision was taken that permits shall be given to minibuses for the route which do not have, distance of more than 50 Kilometers and the total distance covered in the day does not exceed 200 Kilometers. He also relied upon he Circular issued by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Transport Department, on 14th February, 1996. 3. A counter affidavit was filed by the permit holder in opposition to the writ petition, wherein a plea was set up that there is no clash of timing between the objector and the permit holder and, therefore, the writ petition at his instance was not maintainable. it was also brought to the notice of the court that Magadh Regional Transport Authority, Gaya had amended its earlier resolution whereb the bus of less than 53 seats are treated in the category of minibus and are entitled to grant of permit for the route distance upto 200 Kilometers. it was also brought to the notice of the court that Magadh Regional Transport Authority, Gaya had amended its earlier resolution whereb the bus of less than 53 seats are treated in the category of minibus and are entitled to grant of permit for the route distance upto 200 Kilometers. It is also his stand in the counter affidavit that Magadh Regional Transport Authority also in his meeting held on 10th October, 2006, resolved to grant permit to a minibus having more than 26 seats for a Stage Carriage Permit and as such permit has been granted by the authority to the appellant treating his bus having capacity of 33 seats. 4. The single judge was of the view that the seat capacity of the minibus was 33 and stage carriage permit can not be granted exceeding a distance of 50 Kilometers. In view of the isingle judge, a route distance exceeding 50 Kilometers is a long distance and for that Stage Carriage Permit can be granted only to 53 seater bus. It was also held by the single judge that the grant of permit suffered from inherent lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, he quashed the permit granted on 11th December, 2006 to the permit holder. 5. We heard the Counsel for the appellant, Government Counsel and the Counsel for the respondent no.5 6. Having reflected over the matter thoughtfully, in our considered opinion, the view of the single judge is erroneous for more than one reason. For one, the finding of the single judge that there was inherent lack of jurisdiction for Magadh Regional Transport Authority to grant permit to the permit holder on 11th December, 2006 is unsustainable. The single judge relied upon Annexure-3, annexed with the writ petition to hold that Magadh Regional Transport Authority lacked jurisdiction in granting permission. The close perusal of Annexure- 3, would reveal that it is nothing but a proceeding of Magadh Regional Transport Authority itself. This is not a directive of the State government or a notification of the State government. It is also not a directive by the State Transport Authority. Surely, if in a particular proceeding, the Magadh1 Regional Transport Authority took a particular view, it always has power to amend , modify and re-consider its own view. In any Case, how could based on its proceeding (Annexure -3), the impugned grant can be held to be without jurisdiction. It is also not a directive by the State Transport Authority. Surely, if in a particular proceeding, the Magadh1 Regional Transport Authority took a particular view, it always has power to amend , modify and re-consider its own view. In any Case, how could based on its proceeding (Annexure -3), the impugned grant can be held to be without jurisdiction. If the grant of permit is not in accord with its previous proceeding, at best, such grant can be termed as irregular or improper or lacking propriety but such order cannot be said to be lacking jurisdiction. 7. For two, the counsel for the petitioner ( present respondent no.5) admitted and, in our view, fairly that in the light of the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , the petitioner did not have no locus to object to grant of Stage Carriage Permit to the permit holder. If he had no locus to object to the permit granted to the permit holder, we are afraid, in law, he cannot be held to be aggrieved person. If he cannot be held to be aggrieved person, he cannot challenge the grant of permit dated 11th pecember, 2006 by invoking high prerogative jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. For three, and more importantly, the controversy as to whether the route distance exceeding 50 Kilometers is a, long distance or not, now stands squarely concluded by the two circulars issued by the State government modifying its earlier circular dated 14th February, 1996. By the circular dated 15th April, 2006, the State government clarified that for short distance the minibus can be granted Stage Carriage Permit. What is short; distance is clarified in the subsequent circular dated 4th July, 2007, which states in its unmistakable term that the distance . withih the territorial jurisdiction of RTA shall be treated a short distance. 9. That the route Gaya to Dumariya is within the territorial jurisdiction of Magadh Regional Transport Authority, is not in dispute. In the circumstances, the length of the route pales into insignificance once the State government has clarified its previous circular dated 14th February, 1996 that the distance of the route within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority is a short distance. Thus, Gaya - Dumaria route has to. In the circumstances, the length of the route pales into insignificance once the State government has clarified its previous circular dated 14th February, 1996 that the distance of the route within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority is a short distance. Thus, Gaya - Dumaria route has to. be held to be short distance, for which the Stage Carriage Permit can be granted to a minibus. 10. In our considered opinion, therefore., the order dated 7th January, 2008 passed by the single judge cannot be sustained. 11. We , accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 7th January, 2008. The parties shall bear theri expenae litis.