Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1224 (HP)

New Prem Bus Service v. State of H. P.

2016-06-30

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (oral). Heard. 2. This order shall dispose of both the petitions filed against the notice Annexure P-2, issued in revision petitions No.1 & 2 of 2016, filed against order dated 2.7.2015 by one Ritesh Kumar and Joginder Singh in Himachal Pradesh State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Shimla-2. 3. Complaint is that learned Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to revise its own order. The proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal in revision petition have, therefore, been sought to be quashed and set aside. 4. The record reveals that in appeal under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the petitioner herein before learned appellate Tribunal, the following orders came to be passed on 2.7.2015: “The dispute between the parties is about maintaining the frequency of the buses plied by the appellant and respondent No.4 to 6. Let direction be issued to respondent No.2 to hold a meeting of the parties within one month and to resolve the matter. Ordered accordingly. File after needful be consigned to the record room.” 5. It is thus seen that the appeals stand disposed of finally. Ritesh Kumar and Joginder Singh, respondent No.2 in these petitions, are also stage carriage transporters. They felt aggrieved by the order Annexure P-1 as their grievances are that if only the petitioner and respondents No.4 to 6 in the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal below are associated by respondent No.2 in the meeting so ordered to be convened and the time schedule of the buses being plied by them is readjusted, the time schedule of the buses being plied by them is likely to be disturbed and in that event they may suffer loss. Therefore, according to them, the meeting comprising the petitioner and respondents No.4 to 6 alone should have not been ordered to be convened, but all the stake holders including them need to be associated in the meeting to be so convened. It is in this backdrop, aforesaid Ritesh Kumar and Joginder Singh have preferred two separate revision petitions Annexure P-1 to these petitions. It is in this backdrop, aforesaid Ritesh Kumar and Joginder Singh have preferred two separate revision petitions Annexure P-1 to these petitions. Notice Annexure P-2 in both the revision petitions have been issued to the opposite parties on behalf of the petitioner (respondent No.7 in the revision petition), learned counsel has put in appearance and an application, Annexure P-3, with a prayer to prepone the date as was fixed in the revisions and to hear the same at an early date, filed before learned Tribunal below. The records reveal that the applications were disposed of having been turned infructuous vide order passed on 5.5.2016 and rightly so because the next date in the matter before learned Tribunal below was on 24.5.2016. 6. The question of maintainability of the revision petitions is, no doubt, still pending adjudication before learned appellate Tribunal below; however, a bare perusal of the provision contained under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act amply demonstrates that the appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to revise its own order. Therefore, allowing the proceedings in the revision petitions to continue further before learned Tribunal may not be in the interest of justice but amount to abuse of process of law. This Court, however, is in agreement with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, Ritesh Kumar and Joginder Singh, respondent No.2 in these petitions, that the petitioner herein and respondents No.4 to 6 in appeal alone should not be called upon to attend the meeting, directed to be convened by respondent No.2, Regional Transport Authority, Dharamshala, but all affected persons including respondent No.2 Ritesh Kumar and Joginder Singh in these petitions are also required to be called upon to attend the meeting. 7. Mr. Sharma, Learned counsel submits that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent HRTC in the appeal is qua maintaining the frequency of the buses being plied by the petitioner herein and the HRTC and that there is no dispute of the time schedule. This Court, however, feels that in case any decision to maintain frequency of buses being plied by the petitioner herein and HRTC is taken by respondent No.2 in the joint meeting ordered to be convened vide order Annexure P-1 passed by learned appellate Tribunal, the frequency of the other stage carriage transporters like respondent No.2, in both the petitions, is also likely to be adversely affected. Therefore, Ms. Therefore, Ms. Suman Thakur, Advocate representing them is absolutely justified in submitting that no legal and valid decision qua maintaining frequency of plying the buses by the petitioner and HRTC can be taken in the meeting if scheduled to be held pursuant to the orders Annexure P-1 without associating Ritesh Kumar and Joginder Singh aforesaid, respondents No.2, in these petitions. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the dispute can be set at rest by clarifying order Annexure P-1 that besides the petitioner, New Prem Bus Service and HRTC, respondent No.2 Ritesh Kumar and Joginder Singh and other similarly situated persons shall also be associated by respondent No.2 in the meeting to be convened in terms of the order Annexure P-1. 9. There shall be a direction to Regional Transport Authority, Dharamshala to convene the meeting at an early date, however, not beyond 31st August, 2016. The Authority shall convey date to be so fixed well in advance to all concerned including the parties on both sides and take a conscious decision in the matter after affording them due opportunity of being heard. 10. With these observations, the proceedings in revision petitions No.1 and 2 of 2016, before learned Appellate Tribunal below stand quashed and these petitions also stand disposed of. 11. An authenticated copy of this judgment be supplied to learned Additional Advocate General for onward transmission to Regional Transport Authority, Dharamshala for compliance.