Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 779 (UTT)

JASBIR SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2010-10-27

BARIN GHOSH, SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) : The route in question is part of a restricted route. On 5.8.1994, a notification was issued and thereby, private transport operators were permitted to ply buses on restricted routes. A notification was issued inviting applications from private transport operators for obtaining permits to ply passenger-buses on the route in question. One hundred and one persons responded to the said notification. Considering such response, fifteen persons were granted permits, whereas, the applications of the appellants before us were rejected only on the ground that they have permits to ply buses on other routes. Appellants preferred appeals against the decision not to grant them permit on the ground that they had permits to ply buses on other routes. The State Transport Corporation filed a revision against the self same order, but in respect of that part by which fifteen permits were granted to ply buses on the said route, contending that the said route falls within the restricted route. While the appeals were heard together, the revision was heard separately. By two separate orders both dated 26.9.2005, the appeals filed by the appellants as well as the revision were allowed. The appeals were partly allowed declaring that the decision to reject the applications of the appellants for grant of permits on the ground that they have permits to ply buses on other routes is not sustainable, but no direction was issued to issue any permit in favour of the appellants on the ground that the same is not permissible in view of the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the revision application. In the revision application, it was held that the route in question falls within the restricted route, and accordingly, no permit could be granted to private operators to ply buses on the said route. By the order passed on the revision application, the decision to grant fifteen permits was also interfered with. Fifteen persons, who were entitled to permits, in view of the decision of the Regional Transport Authority as was interfered by the Tribunal in the aforementioned revision, filed a writ petition challenging the said decision of the Tribunal rendered on the said revision application and succeeded therein. By reasons thereof, the order of the Tribunal passed on the revision stood quashed. By reasons thereof, the order of the Tribunal passed on the revision stood quashed. In such view of the matter, the impediment in the grant of permits in favour of the appellants, being the decision of the Tribunal rendered on the said revision application, stood removed. The appellants approached this Court by filing two separate writ petitions seeking a direction for issuance of permits. Those were disposed of by permitting the appellants to approach the Authority concerned for their decision. Subsequent thereto, the Transport Secretary issued permits in favour of the appellants. Those were considered later by the Regional Transport Authority by a circular resolution, and subsequently, the same was approved in a regular meeting of the Regional Transport Authority. On the strength of the said permits, the appellants started plying their buses on the route in question. Seeing that the appellants have launched buses on the route in question, the private respondents in the present appeals approached the Regional Transport Authority for grant of permits to ply buses on the said route. That having been rejected on the ground that there is no further vacancy available, the said respondents filed a writ petition and contended therein that grant of permits in favour of the appellants was improper and/or illegal. While considering the writ petition, a learned Single Judge felt that the grant in favour of the appellants was by the Regional Transport Officer and not by the Regional Transport Authority, and accordingly, by the judgment and order impugned in the appeals interfered with the grants in question. 2. Judicial review is available in respect of an action, which is per se illegal, but it is not necessarily available in respect of an action, which is irregular. Judicial review against an irregular action is available only when by reason of such action any interest of the person seeking judicial review has been interfered. The question is, “Can it be said that the action of grant of permits is per se illegal, and accordingly, cannot be looked-at all for a moment or the same should be treated to be a product of mere irregularity?” If it is a mere irregularity, the question would be, did the same interfere with any interest of the private respondents. 3. The fact remains that the Regional Transport Authority invited applications by a notification for grant of permits and the same was responded by the appellants. 3. The fact remains that the Regional Transport Authority invited applications by a notification for grant of permits and the same was responded by the appellants. The fact further remains that the response of the appellants had been considered by the Regional Transport Authority from all angle, but the said responses were rejected by the Regional Transport Authority only on the ground that the appellants have permits to ply buses on other routes. The same suggested that the appellants were otherwise entitled to be granted permits for the route in question, but inasmuch as, they have been granted permits to ply buses on other routes, the same stands in the way of grant of permits for the route in question in their favour. On appeal, the Tribunal expressly held that the holding of permits to ply buses on other routes does not stand in the way of the appellants getting permits to ply buses on the route in question. If these two are read together, it must be deemed that in law, a decision has been taken not to reject the responses of the appellants to the notification inviting applications for grant of permits, resulting in a decision to grant the same. 4. While the appeals were being disposed of, it was noticed by the Tribunal that in a revision dealt with by it, a decision has been rendered by it that the route in question cannot be used by private operators. Having had knowledge of the said decision, since the same was taken by it, the Tribunal had incorporated the same in its order passed on the appeals preferred by the appellants. The decision of the Tribunal rendered on the revision application stood removed by the order of this Court. As a result, nothing further stood in the matter of grant of permits in favour of the appellants. It is true that even thereafter, it was obligatory on the part of the Regional Transport Authority to consider the matter in its meeting and for the purpose of keeping the records straight to record a decision to grant permits. That was not done before the permits were in fact issued. After the permits were issued, issuance of the permits had been ratified; firstly by the circular resolution and later in a regular meeting, by the Regional Transport Authority. That was not done before the permits were in fact issued. After the permits were issued, issuance of the permits had been ratified; firstly by the circular resolution and later in a regular meeting, by the Regional Transport Authority. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the action complained of in the writ petition was per se illegal. It was a mere irregularity. Now the question is, “By reason of the said irregularity, did the private respondents suffer in any manner whatsoever?” The answer would be “No”, since the private respondents were not respondees to the notification, which was responded by the appellants. Private respondents wanted to take the benefit or advantage of the grant given in favour of the appellants. They having failed, they purported to contend in the writ petition that the action complained of therein is illegal. 5. We, accordingly, allow the appeals, set aside the judgment and order under appeals and at the same time, dismiss the writ petitions. 6. Let a copy of this judgment be kept in the file of the connected Special Appeal.