Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 531 (UTT)

Arvind Kumar Pandey v. State of Uttarakhand

2015-11-16

U.C.DHYANI

body2015
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. (oral) Since identical questions of law are involved in all the aforesaid writ petitions, therefore, they are being decided together by this common judgment and order for the sake of brevity and convenience. 2. Writ Petition no. 1302 of 2015 (M/S), Arvind Kumar Pandey vs State of Uttarakhand and others, shall be the leading case. 3. By means of aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioners seek to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the minutes of meeting dated 25.03.2015 of the Regional Transport Authority, which was made public vide notice publication dated 21.04.2015, so far as it creates cluster of roads. A prayer has also been sought for directing the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun Region to issue Auto-rickshaw Contract Carriage Permits to the petitioners for 25 km. radius for Haridwar Center pursuant to the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun Region in its meeting dated 10.09.2014. 4. The petitioners are challenging the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun Region (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent authority’) in its meeting dated 25.03.2014, the information of which was published in newspaper on 21.04.2015, by which the respondent authority has created clusters (groups of routes). For Haridwar Center, two routes have been created, for the purposes of issuing permits to the persons whose permits were granted pursuant to meeting dated 10.09.2014, although in meeting dated 10.09.2014 the permits were granted for issuing permits for radius of 25 kms. (except hilly area). Petitioners, who have been issued Contract Permit by the respondent Authority for operating 3 + 1 seater auto rickshaw, were aggrieved by the decision of the respondent authority taken in the meeting dated 25.03.2015, whereby a decision to form a cluster of different roads in Haridwar, Laksar, Roorkee was taken and while issuing the permits a condition of plying the auto rickshaws at a particular cluster of road was attached. 5. On 10.09.2014, meeting of the respondent authority took place. In the said meeting, item no. 30(b) pertained to consideration and order on issuing permits for 4 + 1 and 5 + 1 seater auto rickshaws. A perusal of item no. 30(b) shows that the respondent authority was considering the letter of the Addl. 5. On 10.09.2014, meeting of the respondent authority took place. In the said meeting, item no. 30(b) pertained to consideration and order on issuing permits for 4 + 1 and 5 + 1 seater auto rickshaws. A perusal of item no. 30(b) shows that the respondent authority was considering the letter of the Addl. Transport Commissioner, Uttarakhand dated 11.04.2014, whereby the public representatives desired for issuance of permits for auto rickshaws in Roorkee and Haridwar in public interest. The respondent authority in the said meeting decided to grant permits for 3 + 1, 4 + 1 and 5 + 1 seater auto rickshaws in Haridwar, Rishikesh and Roorkee Centers within 25 km. radius on certain conditions. On 01.10.2014, respondent authority issued a publication in the newspaper, whereby the decision taken in the meeting dated 10.09.2014 was made public and the intending applicants were informed that on fulfilling the conditions mentioned in the advertisement, they can obtain the permits for new auto rickshaws upto 30.11.2014. Public at large was also informed that the respondent authority has taken a decision of sanctioning the auto rickshaw permits for Rishikesh, Haridwar and Roorkee Centers. In response to publication dated 01.10.2014, petitioners, who were intending to apply for the new auto rickshaw permits applied in the office of the respondent authority for sanctioning of the contract permits for Haridwar Center. On 31.10.2014, petitioners applied for issuance of the auto rickshaw permits for Haridwar Center. On the same day, the respondent authority sanctioned the contract permits for auto rickshaw (3 + 1 seater) in favour of the petitioners for Haridwar Center. On the basis of the issuance of contract permits in favour of the petitioners by the respondent authority, petitioners purchased new auto rickshaws and applied for registration for the same and also paid the necessary taxes. The Contract Permits sanctioned in favour of the petitioners by the respondent authority on 31.10.2014, mentioned that the same are being issued in terms of the decision taken by the respondent authority in its meeting dated 10.09.2014 in respect of item no. 30(b) regarding Haridwar, Rishikesh and Roorkee Centers. The letter sanctioning the permits in favour of the petitioners further mentioned that the permits are for Haridwar Center for 25 km. radius and are being issued on the conditions mentioned in the sanctioning letter dated 31.10.2014 and in terms of decision taken by the respondent authority. 30(b) regarding Haridwar, Rishikesh and Roorkee Centers. The letter sanctioning the permits in favour of the petitioners further mentioned that the permits are for Haridwar Center for 25 km. radius and are being issued on the conditions mentioned in the sanctioning letter dated 31.10.2014 and in terms of decision taken by the respondent authority. The letter sanctioning the permits further mentioned that the letters of acceptance shall be valid until the permits are obtained by the applicants after getting the vehicles registered by 30.11.2014, in terms of the decision of the respondent authority. The petitioners believing the promise held out by the respondent authority in its sanctioning letter dated 31.10.2014, purchased new vehicles and got the same registered with the transport authorities. Petitioners also paid the road tax of the vehicles and got the same insured. The vehicles were registered with the office of Asstt. Regional Transport authority, Haridwar on 29.11.2014 and were financed by various Financial Institutions. Some of the applicants in whose favour the sanctioning letters were issued by the respondent authority, applied for the issuance of the permits in pursuance of the decision taken in the meeting held on 10.09.2014 and got succeeded in getting the permits in respect of contract carriage valid for 25 km. radius from Haridwar Center. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that on 10.11.2014 a meeting of the respondent authority was held without prior information to the public at large and more particularly the applicants, like the petitioners, who had already applied for the sanctioning of the auto rickshaw permits pursuant to the decision taken on 10.09.2014. In the meeting dated 10.11.2014, the respondent authority confirmed the minutes of meeting dated 10.09.2014, except the decision taken on Item no. 30(b). Item no. 4 of the minutes of meeting of the respondent authority dated 10.11.2014 took note of the fact that certain representations were received pursuant to the decision dated 10.09.2014. In the said meeting dated 10.11.2014, the respondent authority took a decision to constitute a Joint Committee comprising of S.D.M., Asstt. Regional Transport Officer and the Circle Officer of the area, who will give their opinions / report on certain points. It was also decided in the meeting that the Joint Committee will submit its report to the Secretary of the respondent authority. Regional Transport Officer and the Circle Officer of the area, who will give their opinions / report on certain points. It was also decided in the meeting that the Joint Committee will submit its report to the Secretary of the respondent authority. The report of the Joint Committee will be placed before the authority and until then no permits will be issued for Rishikesh and Haridwar centers. Minutes of meeting dated 10.11.2014 were not made public inasmuch as no public notice was issued by the respondent authority informing the applicants about the decision taken by the Authority for not issuing the permits to the applicants. Since the decision was not communicated to the petitioners, the petitioners were not aware of any such decision of the respondent authority. In pursuance of the decision of the respondent authority dated 10.11.2014, the Joint Committee submitted its report on 17.01.2015, wherein in respect of point no. 4, the Joint Survey Committee reported that in Haridwar Center large number of auto rickshaws are operating and as such, it is not in public interest to issue new permits. The Committee further reported that new permits should be issued for the routes mentioned in Point no. 2. A meeting of the respondent authority was held on 21.01.2015 without any prior notice to the public or to the affected persons. In the meeting held on 21.01.2015, the report of the Joint Committee dated 17.01.2015 was placed. The respondent authority took a decision to constitute a Committee comprising of Asstt. Regional Transport Officer (Admin.), Dehradun; Asstt. Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement), Haridwar and Asstt. Regional Transport Officer, Roorkee requiring the Committee to conduct the survey of the roads for which permits can be issued for operation of auto rickshaws. The Committee was required to undertake the necessary exercise in terms of the decision of the respondent authority and to submit the report. The decision of the respondent authority was communicated to the members of the Committee vide letter dated 12.02.2015. The decision taken by the respondent authority in the meeting dated 21.01.2015 was also not made public and as such, the petitioners were not aware of the decision dated 21.01.2015. 7. On 25.03.2015, a meeting of the respondent authority was held. The decision of the respondent authority was communicated to the members of the Committee vide letter dated 12.02.2015. The decision taken by the respondent authority in the meeting dated 21.01.2015 was also not made public and as such, the petitioners were not aware of the decision dated 21.01.2015. 7. On 25.03.2015, a meeting of the respondent authority was held. No prior public notice of any such meeting was issued and the agenda to be discussed in the said meeting was also not made public in advance, more particularly to the petitioners or the applicants, whose rights were going to be affected. In the said meeting held on 25.03.2015, the respondent authority taking note of the report submitted by the Joint Committee decided to form the cluster of different roads for Haridwar Center, Laksar Center and Roorkee Center. For Haridwar Center, the cluster of roads formed was from Shyampur-Kangri-Chandi Devi-Kali Mandir-Chilla Forest Department Gate and the second cluster of roads was from Ranipur Band to BHEL Road, Shivalik Nagar Crossing-SIDCUL-Roshnabad. In the meeting dated 25.03.2015, the respondent authority further decided that the applicants who have obtained the sanction letters and got their vehicles registered in terms of the decision taken in the meeting dated 10.09.2014, those applicants, on submitting an application alongwith the earlier decided conditions, will be issued permits on any of the following cluster of roads. The owners of the vehicles can obtain permits for any of the above mentioned cluster of roads. On 21.04.2015, the respondent authority issued a public notification regarding the decision taken in the meeting held on 25.03.2015. The public notice mentioned that it has been decided that roadwise auto rickshaw permits will be issued for Haridwar, Laksar and Roorkee Centers. The concerned persons can obtain the permits on any working day after completing the necessary formalities. Pursuant to the decision taken by the respondent authority in its meeting dated 25.03.2015, as was made public vide public notice dated 21.04.2015, the respondent authority is issuing the Contract Carriage Permits for Haridwar Center on the basis of the cluster of roads mentioned in the meeting dated 25.03.2015 and not on the basis of the 25 km. radius from the Center. Petitioners also approached the respondents for issuance of the permits as per the letter dated 09.10.2014, but the respondents insisted that the permits will be issued only in terms of the decision dated 25.03.2015. 8. radius from the Center. Petitioners also approached the respondents for issuance of the permits as per the letter dated 09.10.2014, but the respondents insisted that the permits will be issued only in terms of the decision dated 25.03.2015. 8. It is stated in the aforesaid writ petitions that in terms of the decision taken by the respondent authority in its meeting dated 10.09.2014, some of the applicants have been issued the auto rickshaw permits for contract carriage for 25 km. radius for Haridwar Center. One Prince Rajwar had also applied for issuance of permit for Rishikesh Center in terms of the meeting dated 10.09.2014. Prince Rajwar was issued the Contract Carriage Permit for auto rickshaw for Rishikesh Center for 25 km. radius. It is further stated that the cluster of roads were formed by the respondent authority in its meeting held on 25.03.2015. If permits for the same is issued in favour of the applicants, then the applicants have to bear extra cost for travelling on these roads by paying tax to BHEL and Forest Department inasmuch as the cluster of roads passes through the roads constructed by BHEL or they have to travel through Rajaji National Park. It is lastly stated that the insistence of the respondent authority to issue permits on the cluster of roads on the sanction of the permits granted earlier to the petitioners amounts to change in the condition of the sanction letter, for which the respondent authority is not competent. 9. Learned Addl. C.S.C. contended, among other things, that the petitioners have got an alternate remedy under Sections 89(1)(a) and 89(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said provisions are being reproduced hereunder for convenience: “89. Appeals. 9. Learned Addl. C.S.C. contended, among other things, that the petitioners have got an alternate remedy under Sections 89(1)(a) and 89(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said provisions are being reproduced hereunder for convenience: “89. Appeals. –(1) Any person – (a) aggrieved by the refusal of the State or a Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit, or by any condition attached to a permit granted to him, or (b) aggrieved by the revocation or suspension of the permit or by any variation of the conditions thereof, or (c) aggrieved by the refusal to transfer the permit under section 82, or (d) aggrieved by the refusal of the State or a Regional Transport Authority to countersign a permit, or by any condition attached to such counter-signature, or (e) aggrieved by the refusal of renewal of a permit, or (f) aggrieved by the refusal to grant permission under section 83, or (g) aggrieved by any other order which may be prescribed, may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal constituted under sub-section (2), who shall, after giving such person and the original authority an opportunity of being heard, give a decision thereon which shall be final.” [Distinguishing feature of this case is being mentioned at the end of paragraph 10 below]. 10. Learned Addl. C.S.C. also drew the attention of this Court towards sub-section (2) of Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The same reads as under: “The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a contract carriage permit, may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely :- (i) that the vehicles shall be used only in a specified area or on a specified route or routes; ……………………..” [The distinguishing feature of the instant case is that such condition was not attached to the permit issued to the petitioners initially. The condition of permit was changed subsequently, i.e., petitioners were required to opt for cluster of roads]. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners replied that had these rules been followed by the respondent authority in respect of all the applicants, then the petitioners would have no grudge against the same. The condition of permit was changed subsequently, i.e., petitioners were required to opt for cluster of roads]. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners replied that had these rules been followed by the respondent authority in respect of all the applicants, then the petitioners would have no grudge against the same. But, learned counsel contended that about 50 permits have been issued by the respondent authority to those who have contacts with the power that be, in violation of its own policy decision and did not extend the said benefit to the petitioners. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners and other applicants have not been treated equally and, therefore, they had no option but to approach this Court by way of filing aforesaid writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that had the law been made applicable to all, without discrimination, they would have preferred the alternate forum for redressal of their grievances, but for the reason that they are the victims of unequal treatment, which has been meted out to the petitioners, vis-à-vis others, who have been given favourable treatment by the respondent authority. The other applicants have been granted permits for entire 25 km. radius from the Haridwar Center. Some other applicants have been given permits for a distance of 15 km. radius from Haridwar Center and the condition of a specific cluster of roads has not been made applicable to them. The same treatment has not been given to the petitioners. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of the Court, a few observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg vs Union of India and others, AIR 1992 S.C. 443 . Paragraph no. 15 of the aforesaid judgment is being reproduced here-in-below for convenience: “The petitioners have further contended that the conditions of roads, social status of the applicants, possibility of small operators being eliminated by big operators, conditions of hilly routes, fuel availability and pollution control are some of the important factors which the Regional transport Authority is bound to take into consideration while taking a decision on an application for grant of permit. These are the matters which are supposed to be within the comprehension of the transport authorities. The legislative policy under the Act cannot be challenged on these grounds. These are the matters which are supposed to be within the comprehension of the transport authorities. The legislative policy under the Act cannot be challenged on these grounds. It is not disputed that the Regional Transport Authority has the power under the Act to refuse an application for grant of permit by giving reasons. It is for the authority to take into consideration all the relevant factors at the time of quasi-judicial consideration of the applications for grant of permits. The statutory authorities under the Act are bound to keep a watch on the erroneous and illegal exercise of power in granting permits under the liberalised policy.” 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents brought on record this Court is of the opinion that once the petitioners have applied for contract carriage permits and the same having been sanctioned by the competent authority, the respondent authority could not have changed the terms and conditions of the permits in arbitrary manner without informing the affected persons. The decision of the respondent authority dated 25.03.2015 appears to be self contradictory inasmuch as, on the one hand, it states that the terms and conditions of the letter sanctioning the permits will continue, but, at the same time, the applicants are, now, required to opt for one of the cluster of roads on making applications for grant of permits. The earlier conditions on which the letter sanctioning permit was issued in favour of the petitioners specifically mentioned that the permits for Haridwar Center will be for 25 km. radius but decision dated 25.03.2015 of the respondent authority provides that on same conditions, the permits will be issued for cluster of roads, which appears to be arbitrary and contradictory. The respondent authority decided to form clusters for issuance of permits. The letter sanctioning the permit in favour of the petitioners was issued for Haridwar Center for 25 km. radius. The petitioners were caught on the wrong foot as they had applied for the permit of Haridwar Center in response to public notice dated 01.10.2014, but now the respondents, without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, have changed the terms and conditions of permits of contract carriage issued in favour of the petitioners. radius. The petitioners were caught on the wrong foot as they had applied for the permit of Haridwar Center in response to public notice dated 01.10.2014, but now the respondents, without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, have changed the terms and conditions of permits of contract carriage issued in favour of the petitioners. The decision of the respondent authority taken in its meeting dated 25.03.2015 is under challenge on the ground, inter alia, that the said meeting was held without prior public notice and in contravention of the provisions of Section 79 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Furthermore, sub-section (ix) of Section 74 of the Act says that the Regional Transport Authority may vary the conditions of permit but that too after giving notice of not less than one month and, in the present case, the respondent authority has varied the terms and conditions of the permit without complying the mandate of the provisions of law. The mandate of sub-section (ix) of section 74 of the Act is mandatory inasmuch as the same affects the civil rights of the persons in whose favour permits have been issued. The decision taken by the respondent authority in its meeting held on 25.03.2015 appears to be discriminatory between the same class of persons who have been issued permits pursuant to the decision taken in the meeting held on 10.09.2014. In pursuance of the decision taken in the meeting held on 10.09.2014, some of the applicants have been issued permits by the respondent authority to operate the vehicle within 25 km. radius from Haridwar Center, where as now additional conditions are being imposed for issuance of permits to the petitioners and, that too, in violation of provisions of section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 14. It will also be pertinent to mention here that in pursuance of the letter sanctioning the permits in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners have purchased new vehicles and got the same registered and paid taxes thereon. A case has been made out to show that the petitioners are facing financial difficulties in view of respondent authority’s latest decision, as the petitioners cannot ply their auto rickshaws within 25 km. radius from Haridwar Center. A case has been made out to show that the petitioners are facing financial difficulties in view of respondent authority’s latest decision, as the petitioners cannot ply their auto rickshaws within 25 km. radius from Haridwar Center. The condition of plying of auto rickshaws within a specified cluster of roads imposed by the respondent authority for granting permits to the petitioners is not economically viable to the petitioners. While reviewing its decision, the respondent authority has left the petitioners in the lurch. 15. In view of the above discussion, the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun Region is directed to reconsider the prayer of the petitioners for grant of permits in respect of auto rickshaws for the entire 25/15 km. radius from Haridwar Center as was done in the cases of other applicants (non-petitioners), according to law. 16. With the observation as above, all the aforesaid writ petitions stand disposed of. No order as to costs.