Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 603 (MP)

Pawan Arora v. Som Prakash Channana

2017-05-02

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI, SHEEL NAGU

body2017
ORDER : 1. The present intra Court appeal u/S 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchch Nyayalaya (Khand Nayay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005 assails the final order dated 28.03.2016 passed in W.P. No. 2076/16 whereby petition in question assailing the note appended to the Stage Carriage permit between Gwalior to Rewa granted to respondent No. 4 and 5 by the STA to the extent that the said note empowers the Secretary to decide the time-table of buses under the said permit for their intermediary arrivals and departures at various stations, has been allowed by setting aside the offending note. The appellants are the persons who had objected to the grant of stage carriage permit in favour of respondent No. 4 and 5, who are respondent No. 6 and 7 herein. Since the said objector appellants were not made party before the Writ Court, an application seeking leave to appeal has been filed vide I.A. No. 4871/16 which after being considered is allowed for reasons mentioned therein. The appellants are permitted to prosecute this appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant objectors (objectors before the STA) placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in case of M.P.S.R.T.C. v. S.T.A.T. reported in 1994 Vol 1 MPWN Note 16 to contend that the STAT cannot pass an order adverse to the interest of the objectors before the RTA without hearing them. 3. True it is that the appellants were not impleaded before the writ Court, but applying the principle of 'useless formality theory' enunciated by the Apex Court in the case Aligarh Muslim University And Others v. Mansoor Ali Khan reported in (2000) 7 SCC 529 , it is seen from the record that even if the appellants were heard by the Writ Court, the result of the writ petition in question would not have been different. The relevant para 25 of the said decision is reproduced below: 25. The 'useless formality' theory, it must be noted, is an exception. Apart from the class of "admitted or indisputable facts leading only to one conclusion" referred to above, there has been considerable debate on the application of that theory in other cases. The divergent views expressed in regard to this theory have been elaborately considered by this Court in M.C. Mehta referred to above. Apart from the class of "admitted or indisputable facts leading only to one conclusion" referred to above, there has been considerable debate on the application of that theory in other cases. The divergent views expressed in regard to this theory have been elaborately considered by this Court in M.C. Mehta referred to above. This Court surveyed the views expressed in various judgments in England by Lord Reid, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Woolf, Lord Bingham, Megarry, J. and Straughton, L.J. etc in various cases and also views expressed by leading writers like Profs. Garner, Craig, de Smith, Wade, D.H. Clark etc. Some of them have said that orders passed in violation must always be quashed for otherwise the Court will be prejudging the issue. Some others have said that there is no such absolute rule and prejudice must be shown. Yet, some others have applied via media rules. We do not think it necessary in this case to go deeper into these issues. In the ultimate analysis, it may depend on the facts of a particular case. 4. The decision of the Writ Court of quashing the offending note in question on the ground that no power can be vested upon the Secretary, STA u/S 72 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 is based on the Division Bench decision in the case of Kishorilal v. Secretary, Regional Transport reported in AIR 62 MP 7. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that there is no force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants. 4.1 The relevant statutory provision i.e. Sec 72 of the 1988 Act is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience: 72. Grant of stage carriage permit.- (1) Subject to the provisions of section 71, a Regional Transport Authority may, on an application made to it under section 70, grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit: Provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the application. (2) The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified description and may, subject to any rule 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; (ii) that the operation of the stage carriage shall be commenced with effect from a specified date; (iii) the minimum and maximum number of daily trips to be provided in relation to any route or area generally or on specified days and occasions; (iv) that copies of the time-table of the stage carriage approved by the Regional Transport Authority shall be exhibited on the vehicles and at specified stands and halts on the route or within the area; (v) that the stage carriage shall be operated within such margins of deviation from the approved time-table as the Regional Transport Authority may from time to time specify; (vi) that within municipal limits and such other areas and places as may be prescribed, passengers or goods shall not be taken up or set down except at specified points; (vii) the maximum number of passengers and the maximum weight of luggage that may be carried on the stage carriage, either generally or on specified occasions or at specified times and seasons; (viii) the weight and nature of passengers' luggage that shall be carried free of charge, the total weight of luggage that may be carried in relation to each passenger, and the arrangements that shall be made for the carriage of luggage without causing inconvenience to passengers; (ix) the rate of charge that may be levied for passengers' luggage in excess of the free allowance; (x) that vehicles of a specified type fitted with body conforming to approved specifications shall be used: Provided that the attachment of this condition to a permit shall not prevent the continued use, for a period of two years from the date of publication of the approved specifications, of any vehicle operating on that date; (xi) that specified standards of comfort and cleanliness shall be maintained in the vehicles; (xii) the conditions subject to which goods may be carried in the stage carriage in addition to or to the exclusion of passengers; (xiii) that fares shall be charged is accordance with the approved fare table; (xiv) that a copy of or extract from the fare table approved by the Regional Transport Authority and particulars of any special fares or rates of fares so approved for particular occasions shall be exhibited on the stage carriage and at specified stands and halts; (xv) that tickets bearing specified particulars shall be issued to passengers and shall show the fares actually charged and that records of tickets issued shall be kept in a specified manner; (xvi) that mails shall be carried on the vehicle subject to such conditions (including conditions as to the time in which mails are to be carried and the charges which may be levied) as may be specified; (xvii) the vehicles to be kept as reserve by the holder of the permit to maintain the operation and to provide for special occasions; (xviii) the conditions subject to which vehicle may be used as a contract carriage; (xix) that specified arrangements shall be made for the housing, maintenance and repair of vehicle; (xx) that any specified bus station or shelter maintained by Government or a local authority shall be used and that any specified rent or fee shall be paid for such use; (xxi) that the conditions of the permit shall not be departed from, save with the approval of the Regional Transport Authority; (xxii) that the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not less than one month,- (a) vary the conditions of the permit; (b) attach to the permit further conditions: Provided that the conditions specified in pursuance of clause (i) shall not be varied so as to alter the distance covered by the original route by more than 24 kilometres, and any variation within such limits shall be made only after the Regional Transport Authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or any part thereof; (xxiii) that the holder of a permit shall furnish to the Regional Transport Authority such periodical returns, statistics and other information as the State Government may from time to time prescribe; (xxiv) any other conditions which may be prescribed. 4.2 A plain reading of the said statutory provision reveals that the statutory power of rescheduling of the time-table is vested exclusively with the State Transport Authority and in the absence of any enabling provision for delegating this power to the Secretary, the Secretary of the STA has no authority in law to reschedule the time-table fixed by the STA. The power of rescheduling is vested exclusively with the same authority which originally scheduled the time-table i.e. the STA. 5. No other argument is pressed into service by learned counsel for the appellants and therefore merely on the issue of non-affording of opportunity to the appellant before the Writ Court, allowing of this writ appeal would be an empty formality which in terms of the 'useless formality theory' explained by the Apex Court ought to be avoided. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed sans cost.