Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 885 (JHR)

Maqsood Alam v. State of Jharkhand

2013-07-22

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ application is that his application for grant of road permit on the inter state route - Tata to Angul via Keonjhar, Jasipur, Tiring, Hata is not being considered by the respondent authority under the Motor Vehicles Act and his application is being treated as objector. He had also an additional grievance that the meeting convened by the authorities does not fulfill the coram as only Chairman was presiding over the meeting of the authority held on 26th June 2013 and the matter was adjourned to be taken up on 11th July 2013 for taking any decision in respect of grant of transport permit in the said route. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of learned Single Judge dated 9th September 2003 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3697/03 (Annexure-4) in support of his submission that under section 80(1) of the M.V. Act, 1988, a person has right to apply suo motu for grant of permit for a route at any time and the authorities are bound to consider it. He submits that the said judgement was challenged in Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No. 668/03. The learned Division Bench upheld the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge by which it was held that the authorities are empowered to suo motu consider the application for grant of permit at any time. It appears from perusal of the judgment relied upon by the petitioner that the said writ petitioner in WPC No. 3697/03 was aggrieved by the decision of the transport authority to take up all the applications even those which were not in accordance with the notice and decision to grant interstate stage carriage permit for the route in question which was ultimately granted to the private respondent. The petitioner in the said case appears to have the grievance that the application of the third respondent which was defective, should not have been considered for grant of state road permit. Learned Single Judge in those circumstances, observed that if any person has a right to apply suo motu application under section 80(1) of the M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of permit for a route, at any time, the authorities are bound to consider it. There cannot be a limitation to file such application or documents. Learned Single Judge in those circumstances, observed that if any person has a right to apply suo motu application under section 80(1) of the M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of permit for a route, at any time, the authorities are bound to consider it. There cannot be a limitation to file such application or documents. Therefore, the date on which the Transport Authority considers the claim for grant of permit, it should be in accordance with law and if the applicant rectifies defect by that time, it was open to the Transport Authority to consider such application along with others. However, it was held that it is open to the Transport Authority to prescribe a guideline to give preference to the applicant over the others. Therefore, the writ petitioner in the said case being aggrieved against non-interference by learned Single Judge in the decision of the Transport Authority, had preferred Letters Patent Appeal which also upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 4. Learned AAG Mr. Ajit Kumar, appearing on behalf of the State, submits that the State Transport Authority is functioning as per the provisions of the Act and Rules. The Transport Secretary of the Transport Department is holding the post of Chairman of the Authority and he is holding the post of Transport Commissioner. The Joint Commissioner is also a Member of the said Transport Authority and therefore, the coram of the Authority have been fulfilled. 5. Counsel for the State however is not able to dispute the legal preposition laid in the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, referred to herein-above, and upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. The route in question was advertised by the respondents through an advertisement inviting applications for consideration of grant of permit of the said route along with other routes. It appears that the petitioner had made an application after the cut-off date of the advertisement i.e. 30th August 2012 and certain applications including that of the petitioner were received on 29th September and 30th October 2012 which was kept as an additional agenda. The petitioner however made certain objection against other applicant stating that he has given details of buses of other applicant deployed in service of the schools. An inquiry in respect of the same by the authorities through the concerned DTO delayed decision in the matter. 6. The petitioner however made certain objection against other applicant stating that he has given details of buses of other applicant deployed in service of the schools. An inquiry in respect of the same by the authorities through the concerned DTO delayed decision in the matter. 6. Be that as it may, in view of the legal position as determined by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, referred to herein-above, in WPC No. 3697/03 and upheld by the learned Division Bench of this Court, the respondent authorities are not justified in treating the application of the petitioner as an objector, though he may have filed application after the cut-off date fixed as per advertisement i.e. 30th August 2012. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if his application for road permit for routes in question is considered as an applicant and not as an objector, he does not want to press other part of his submission relating to composition of the Transport Authority in question. From perusal of the minutes annexed to the counter affidavit of the State, it appears that the matter of the petitioner was considered on 26th June 2013 and with the consent of the parties, 11th July 2013 was fixed for taking final decision in the matter. However, because of the interim order passed by this Court on 8th July 2013, no decision has been taken as yet. 8. For the reasons discussed herein-above and the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is being disposed of by directing the respondent State Transport Authority to consider the application of the petitioner, as an applicant instead of an objector, along with all other eligible applicants who have made application for said route, while taking decision in respect of grant of transport permit on the said interstate route i.e. Tata to Angul via Keonjhar, Jasipur, Tiring, Hata, in accordance with law within a reasonable period. Interim order dated 8th July 2013 stands vacated. I.A. Nos. 4498/13 and 4999/13 also stand disposed of.