Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1200 (MP)

Nikesh Mishra v. Regional Transport Authority

2014-09-24

S.K.GANGELE, S.K.PALO

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 2nd May 2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by the State Road Appellate Tribunal (STAT) and also against the order dated 1.6.2012 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Regional Transport Authority. 3. Respondent No. 2 filed an application on 19.5.2008 for grant of permanent permit from Rewa to Jabalpur one return trip daily. He submitted the following time table :- 4. An objection was raised at the time of grant of permit that when the application was filed, the route was not formulated. The authority granted the permit vide order dated 1.6.2012 on the ground that the respondent No. 2 fulfilled all the qualifications. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the STAT, that was also dismissed. 5. The question for consideration before this court is that whether the application for grant of permanent permit was maintainable when the route was not formulated. 6. It is an admitted fact that the respondent No. 2 submitted an application for grant of permanent permit on 19.5.2008 for the route mentioned above in the order. As per the finding recorded by the respondent No. 1, the route was formulated on 21.5.2008, hence, it is clear that on the date when the application was submitted by the respondent No. 2, the route was not formulated. 7. Division Bench of this court vide order dated 29th day of January 2010 passed in W.P. No. 1245/2009 [Ashis Kumar Jain Vs. M.P. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others] has held as under in regard to maintainability of the application if the route is not formulated :- "7. Section 70 of the aforesaid Act of 1988 prescribes for application for grant of stage carriage permit, which is as under :- "70. Application for stage carriage permit.- (1) An application for a permit in respect of a stage carriage (in this Chapter referred to as a stage carriage permit) or as a reserve stage carriage shall, as far as many be, contain the following particulars, namely :- (a) the route or routes or the area or areas to which the application relates; (b) the type and seating capacity of each such vehicle ; (c) the minimum and maximum number of daily trips proposed to be provided and the time-table of the normal trips. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, section 72, section 80 and section 102, "trip" means a single journey from one point to another, and every return journey shall be deemed to be a separate trip; (d) the number of vehicles intended to be kept in reserve to maintain the service and to provide for special occasions; (e) the arrangements intended to be made for the housing, maintenance and repair of the vehicles, for the comport and convenience of passengers and for the storage and safe custody of luggage; (f) Such other matters as may be prescribed. (2) An application referred to in sub- section (1) shall be accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed." From Section 70(1)(a) of the Act of 1988, it is clear that an application for permission in respect of stage carriage must have to mention the particulars that the route or routes or the area or areas to which the application relates. From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that in the application the applicant has to mention the route or the routes or the area or areas to which he intends to get permit. Prior to Section 70of the Act of 1988, Section 68(3)(ca) of the aforesaid Act gives power to the State Government to formulate routes or route for playing stage carriages. The aforesaid provisions if be reads in consonance then it is crystal clear that an application for grant of stage carriages permit could only be submitted on the route which has been formulated in accordance with the provisions of Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act of 1988:- 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg Vs. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 443 , has held as under in regard to object of the Act of 1988 :- "A comparative reading of the provisions of the Act and the Sold Act (1939) makes it clear that the procedure for grant of permits under the new Act has been liberalised to such an extent that an intended operator can get a permit for asking irrespective of the number of operators already in the field. The scheme envisaged under Sections 47 and 57 of the old Act has been completely done away with by the Act. The scheme envisaged under Sections 47 and 57 of the old Act has been completely done away with by the Act. The right of existing operators to file objections and the provision to impose limit on the number of permits have been taken away. There is no similar provision to that of S. 47 and S. 57 under the new Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act shows that the purpose of bringing in the Act was to liberalise the grant of permits. (Paras 5,6) There is no threat of any kind whatsoever under the new Act from any authority to the enjoyment of the right of the existing operators under Article 19 (1) (g) to carry on the occupation of transport operators. More operators mean healthy competition and efficient transport system. Overcrowded buses, passengers standing in the aisle, persons clinging to the bus-doors and even sitting on the roof-top are some of the common sights in this country. More often one finds a bus which has noisy engine, old upholstery, uncomfortable seats and continuous emission of black-smoke from the exhaust pipe. It is, therefore, necessary that there should be plenty of operators on every route to provide ample choice to the commuter-public to board the vehicle of their choice and patronise the operator who is providing the best service. Even otherwise the liberal policy is likely to help in the elimination of corruption and favouritism in the process of granting permits. Restricted licensing under the hands of few persons thereby giving rise to a kind of monopoly, adversely affecting the public interest. It cannot be said that too many operators on a route are likely to affect adversely the interest of weaker section of the profession. The transport business is bound to be ironed out ultimately by the rationale of demand and supply. Cost of a vehicle being as it is the business requires huge investment. The intending operators are likely to be conscious of the economics underlying the profession. Only such number of vehicles would finally remain in operation on a particular route as are economically viable. In any case, the transport system in a state is meant for the benefit and convenience of the public. The policy to grant permits liberally under the Act is directed towards the said goal." 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further in the case of Machindranath Kernath Kasar Vs. In any case, the transport system in a state is meant for the benefit and convenience of the public. The policy to grant permits liberally under the Act is directed towards the said goal." 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further in the case of Machindranath Kernath Kasar Vs. D.S. Mylarappa and Others, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2545 , has held as under in regard to object of the Act of 1988 :- 16. Motor Vehicles Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles. When a law is enacted to consolidate and amend the law, the Legislature not only takes into consideration the law as it has then been existing but also the law which was prevailing prior thereto. 10. The Hon'ble Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Deva Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, reported in : AIR 2006 Rajasthan 180, has held that an application for grant of stage carriage permit could only be maintainable after formulation of routes or route. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg (supra) quoted above has clearly observed that one of the object of the Act of 1988 is elimination of corruption and favouritism in the process of granting permits. If the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner be accepted that the application can be filed before formulation of route, then it will lead a favouritism and corruption because intended applicant must see favour for the purpose of formulation of route and in that circumstances, the S.T.A. would not exercise its powers independently in regard to formulation of route. This point further finds support from the fact of the present case that on the application of the applicant, the Regional Transport Authority made an endorsement in regard to resolution of the formulation of route and that resolution has been accepted subsequently by the STAT before granting permit to the petitioner. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Obliswami Naidu Vs. Additional State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras and others, reported in AIR 1969 SC 1130 , has held as under in regard to a case which was under old Act :- "If a contrary view, viz. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Obliswami Naidu Vs. Additional State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras and others, reported in AIR 1969 SC 1130 , has held as under in regard to a case which was under old Act :- "If a contrary view, viz. that the R.T.A. can determine the question as to the number of stage carriages required on a route at the time it considers applications made by operators for stage carriage permit for that route, is taken it will throw open the door for manipulations and nepotism. The operator who happens to apply for the route first will be in a commanding position. The R.T.A. will have no opportunity to choose between competing operators and hence public interest would suffer. Such a view cannot also be justified by suggesting that sub- section (3) of Section 57 is wide enough to allow the competing operators to apply for the route in question when the first application is published and representations to be made in respect of the application published. Such representations cannot take the form of competing applications. The word "representations" in Section 57(3) does not include applications for the route." (Paras 5, 7) 13. On the basis of above discussion, we hold that formulation of route under Section 68(3)(ca) is condition precedent before filing an application for stage carriage permit under Section 70 of the Act of 1988 for grant of permit." 8. From the aforesaid findings of the Division Bench it is clear that the formulation of road under Section 68(3)(ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to the Act of 1988) is a condition precedent before filing an application for grant of stage carriage permit under Section 17 of the Act of 1988. 9. Admittedly, in the present case, the application was filed before formulation of the route. Hence, the application was not maintainable and on the aforesaid application a permanent permit could not be granted. 10. In this view of the matter, petition is allowed. Impugned orders dt. 2nd May 2013 (Annexure P/1) and dated 1.6.2012 (Annexure P/2) are hereby quashed. It is further observed that RTA is at liberty to issue fresh permanent permit in accordance with law. 11. No order as to costs.