Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2173 (RAJ)

RSRTC, Jaipur v. RTAT, Jaipur

2013-12-04

GOVIND MATHUR

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This batch of writ petitions is preferred by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the corporation') to question correctness of the judgment dated 25.6.2013 passed by learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal'). 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Governments of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan entered into an inter State Transport agreement in the year 2001 wherein the route from Nimbahera to Nimach and Pratapgarh to Mandsore (for short 'the disputed routes') were notified and placed in Schedule-'B'. The corporation was having a permit to ply buses on the disputed routes. The permit of the corporation was renewed by the Regional Transport Authority (for short 'the RTA') on 17.5.2012 for next five years. 3. A new inter State Transport agreement was executed between the Government of Madhya Pradesh and the Government of Rajasthan on 20.7.2007 placing the disputed routes were placed in Schedule-'A', as such were declared non-notified routes. As per subclauses (4) and (20) of clause (4) of the agreement, the renewal of permit made in favour of the corporation remained in currency and that came to an end on 17.5.2012. The corporation prior to that preferred an application for further renewal of the same as per Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988'). Certain private operators raised objections with regard to maintainability of the renewal application on the count that the renewal at the most could have been made for a period of five years and that was already availed by the corporation in the year 2007. As per the private operators, the corporation could have submitted an application for grant of fresh permit as per Section 71 of the Act of 1988, but not for renewal under Section 81 aforesaid. 4. The RTA by order dated 2.7.2012 overruled the objection and renewed the permit for further five years. The order passed by the RTA reads as under:- "Heard counsels for the objectors and permit holders, RSRTC on 18.6.2012 and 25.6.2012. As per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.M.W.P. No.76001/2005 dated 20.12.2005 (B) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1998), Section 71(3)(d)(III) - Non-Notified route- Stage Carriage Permit - State Transport Corporation can apply for grant of permit on Non-notified route and its application is required to be decided under Section 71 giving preferential treatment (paras - 27, 29). As per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.M.W.P. No.76001/2005 dated 20.12.2005 (B) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1998), Section 71(3)(d)(III) - Non-Notified route- Stage Carriage Permit - State Transport Corporation can apply for grant of permit on Non-notified route and its application is required to be decided under Section 71 giving preferential treatment (paras - 27, 29). In the instant case RSRTC has already the permit for the said route, so the permit is allowed to renew and all objectors applications are canceled." 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 2.7.2012 the private bus operators preferred certain appeals and revision petitions before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 25.6.2013 accepted the appeals and the revision petitions with conclusions that the disputed routes being a part of Schedule-'A' of the inter State Transport agreement were not open for renewal for the operator that got one time renewal for the permit that was granted under earlier agreement, wherein the disputed routes were shown in Schedule-'B'. The Tribunal further concluded that the permit in favour of the corporation came to an end on 17.5.2012, thus, in view of Section 81 of the Act of 1988, the corporation unauthorisedly operated buses on the disputed routes subsequent to the date aforesaid. With the conclusions aforesaid the Tribunal canceled the renewal of permit made in favour of the corporation and also held the corporation guilty for not depositing the tax as per Section 81(4)(b) of the Act of 1988. A direction was given to the RTA to reconsider the applications submitted by the bus operators in accordance with the existing inter State Transport agreement within a period of one month. As a consequent to declaration of the petitioner corporation guilty for not depositing the tax as per Section 81(4)(b) of the Act of 1988 the petitioner corporation is not entitled to be considered for grant of permit afresh. 6. In this factual background, these petitions for writ are preferred to challenge the judgment impugned with contention that an application for renewal of the permit was submitted to the RTA in accordance with the provisions of Section 81 of the Act of 1988 and that was decided by the RTA on 2.7.2012. The period as such was not of unauthorised plying of buses, but awaiting decision of the authority competent. The period as such was not of unauthorised plying of buses, but awaiting decision of the authority competent. The corporation was not at all intending to evade its tax liability and, therefore, the Tribunal erred while holding the petitioner guilty for violation of Section 81(4)(b) of the Act of 1988. It is also urged that the petitioner submitted an application for renewal and that was considered by the RTA on merits and further a renewal was made. The Tribunal, if was of the view that the renewal could have not been made, then an opportunity should have been given to the petitioner either to submit a fresh application for having permit or to treat the application of renewal as an application for grant of permit. 7. While opposing the writ petitions, the stand of the respondent bus operators is that the permit granted to the corporation to ply bus on a notified route came to an end on 17.5.2007 and then that was extended for next five years i.e. upto 17.5.2012. A new agreement between the State of Rajasthan and the State of Madhya Pradesh came into being on 20.7.2007 wherein the disputed routes were shown as non-notified routes under Schedule-'A'. No further renewal of the permit already existing in favour of the petitioner could have been made as the earlier one was for a notified route. The petitioner as a matter of fact was required to compete with the other bus operators including the objectors by submitting fresh application as per Section 71 of the Act of 1988. The corporation did not choose to submit any application for grant of fresh permit, therefore, the Tribunal rightly confined the consideration for grant of permit among the existing applicants. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that under the Act of 1988 there is no provision for treating an application submitted for renewal as an application for grant of permit afresh, as such, the renewal application submitted by the petitioner corporation could have not been treated as an application under Section 70 and, thus, could have not been considered as per Section 71 of the Act of 1988. Learned counsel further emphasised that the corporation was operating buses on the disputed routes unauthorisedly and without paying any tax subsequent to 17.5.2012, hence, was held guilty for evading tax liability as per Section 81(4)(b) of the Act of 1988, and for this reason too its claim could have not been considered by the RTA for grant of fresh permit. The Tribunal, as per the respondents, did not commit any wrong that may warrant interference of this Court while exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner corporation was having a permit, thus, rightly submitted the renewal application, that was considered and granted by the RTA. The argument advanced is having no merit in view of the fact that the first renewal of permit was made on 17.5.2007 to ply buses on notified routes and subsequent thereto the petitioner was required to have permit to ply buses on the non-notified routes. The extension earlier granted was saved under the inter State Transport agreement of 2007, but not for subsequent period. As such, there was no question of renewal of the earlier permit. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner then emphasised that the opportunity should have also been granted to the petitioner corporation to compete with other private bus operators for having a fresh permit. It is asserted that the corporation well within the time prescribed submitted an application for renewal of the permit with impression that the same is sufficient under the Act of 1988. The corporation did not apprehend that after placing the disputed routes in Schedule-'A' an application for fresh grant of permit was required. The corporation with all bonafide intending to have operation on the routes concerned, therefore, applied for renewal of permit. The RTA too was of the opinion that a renewal could be made even after coming into force of the new agreement. The Tribunal, if was of the view that an application as per Section 71 should have been submitted by the corporation, then an opportunity should have been granted to do so while disposing of the appeals and the revision petitions preferred by private bus operators. 11. The Tribunal, if was of the view that an application as per Section 71 should have been submitted by the corporation, then an opportunity should have been granted to do so while disposing of the appeals and the revision petitions preferred by private bus operators. 11. True it is, the Act of 1988 nowhere provides for treating an application submitted for renewal of the permit as per Section 84 to be converted as an application under Section 71, however, in the instant matter the facts of the case are quite peculiar in view of the fact that the petitioner corporation was already having a permit to ply buses on a notified route. The permit was renewed on 17.5.2007 and even after declaring the routes concerned as non-notified routes, the permit already granted was saved under the inter State Transport agreement itself. In pursuance thereto the petitioner corporation was entitled to ply buses on the disputed routes upto 17.5.2012. The corporation under a bonafide belief that it is required to get the permit renewed submitted application for renewal by adhering the procedure given under Section 81 of the Act of 1988. The RTA was also of the view that the corporation was entitled for renewal by availing preference as per Section 71 of the Act of 1988 and, thus, renewed the permit. From perusal of the order dated 2.7.2012 it appears that the RTA examined the entire issue in light of the fact that whether State Transport Corporation could have applied for grant of permit on non-notified route or not. The issue as a matter of fact before the RTA was that whether renewal in favour of the petitioner was permissible or an application under Section 70 of the Act of 1988 was required. 12. The Tribunal ultimately arrived at the conclusion that the renewal was not possible, thus, canceled the same and remanded the matter for reconsideration. No doubt, the error was there on part of the corporation in applying for renewal, but that was bonafide one and such mistake deserves condonation. The Tribunal while canceling the renewal granted in favour of the corporation should have directed the RTA to reconsider all the applications submitted for grant of permit on the disputed routes including the petitioner corporation with a condition to submit an application afresh in accordance with Section 70 within some specific period. The Tribunal while canceling the renewal granted in favour of the corporation should have directed the RTA to reconsider all the applications submitted for grant of permit on the disputed routes including the petitioner corporation with a condition to submit an application afresh in accordance with Section 70 within some specific period. The non grant of such opportunity to the corporation, as a matter of fact, is an apparent denial of the right of the corporation to participate in a competition for grant of permit for a non-notified route. 13. So far as the violation of Section 81(4)(b) of the Act of 1988 is concerned, suffice to mention that the RTA granted renewal under the order dated 2.7.2012 and as such the plying of buses by the corporation stand validated and that remained in currency till disposal of the appeals/revision petitions filed by the private bus operators, the respondents herein. In this factual background, it cannot be said that the corporation after 17.5.2012 illegally plied the buses on the disputed routes by evading tax. The Tribunal, thus, is wrong in arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner corporation violated the provisions of Section 81(4)(b) of the Act of 1988. 14. In view of it, I am inclined to accept these petitions for writ in part by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal to the extent that held the petitioner corporation guilty for violation of the provisions of Section 81(4)(b) of the Act of 1988 and further denies it to participate in fair competition for grant of permit to ply buses on the disputed routes. The RTA, thus, is directed to provide an opportunity of at least 15 days from today to the petitioner corporation to submit its applications for grant of permit relating to the disputed routes in accordance with Section 70 of the Act of 1988. The RTA shall consider and decide the application submitted by the petitioner corporation as well as by other applicants as per the procedure given under Section 71 of the Act of 1988 within a period of one month thereafter. 15. Cost is made easy.Petition Allowed. *******