Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 284 (MP)

Rahul Singhal v. State of M. P.

2021-03-01

VISHAL MISHRA

body2021
ORDER 1. The present petition is being filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs : “(I) That, the respondents authorities be directed not to compel the petitioner to replace the vehicle for plying on the route Pathari to Kurwai via Chhapra, Godavari, Bamora as the provisions of amended Rules i.e. 24.10.2011 sub-rule (1-a) will not apply to the petitioner as the same came into force subsequent to the registration of the petitioner’s vehicle and same has no application in view of the provisions of rule 77 (1-b). (II) That, the relief as granted by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No.7703/2018 may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner. (III) Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted to the petitioner against the respondents. Costs be awarded.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.MP08-E- 0180, 2005 model having seating capacity 30+2 and plying the vehicle, permit has been granted by the competent authority for the route Pathari to Kurwai via Chhapra, Godavari Bamora and said permit is valid up to 31.12.2024 and in view of the notification dated 28.12.2015 the amended provisions of rule 77 which was came into force by notification dated 24.11.2010 will not apply to the vehicle which is registered prior to coming into force of the notification. 3. It is argued that the aforesaid controversy was considered by this Court in the case of Waheed Khan v. Transport Department and others (W.P.No.7703/2018), wherein it was held as under : “30.8.2018 Shri Sunil Jain, learned Sr. counsel along with Shri K. Jain, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vibhor Khandelwal, GA for the respondent/State. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 13.2.2018 passed by the Addl.RTO, Dhar, by which temporary stage carriage permit of the petitioner for the vehicle bearing registration No. UP-41- T-1173 has been cancelled on the ground that the vehicle has crossed the age of 15 years from the year of manufacture. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 13.2.2018 passed by the Addl.RTO, Dhar, by which temporary stage carriage permit of the petitioner for the vehicle bearing registration No. UP-41- T-1173 has been cancelled on the ground that the vehicle has crossed the age of 15 years from the year of manufacture. Learned Authority has exercised the powers conferred under rule 77(1-a)(iii) of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 ( in short “ the Rules, 1994 “ ), which is reproduced below : “ Rule 77, sub-rule (1-a) In order to ensure safe, secure and convenient transport services to the passengers, the permit granting authority while granting a stage carriage permit shall abide by the following conditions namely :- (i) that no stage carriage permit shall be granted on interstate route to a vehicle which has completed 10 years from the manufacture year; (ii) [ xxx] (iii) that no stage carriage permit shall be granted for any route of the vehicle which has completed (15 years ) from theyear of manufacture (iv) that for long distance route of ( more than 75 kms) in a single trip, the following category of vehicles with seating capacity shown against each shall be permitted to ply:- 1          Deluxe / Air conditioned Bus not less than 35+2 seats*[including]driver and conductor 2          Express Bus not less than 45+2 seats, *[including] driver and conductor 3          Ordinary Bus not less than 50+2 seats, *[including]driver and conductor (1-b) the restriction imposed by sub-rule (1-a), in so far as they relates to the stage carriage registered before coming into force of the said rules shall not apply.” Shri Sunil Jain, learned Sr. counsel has pointed out that sub-clause (1-b) has been inserted in the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 w.e.f. 28.12.2015, according to which, the provision of sub-rule (1), as it relates to the stage carriage registered before the coming into force of said sub-rule, shall not apply. Learned Authority, before passing of the order under sub-rule (1-a)(iii) of the Rules, did not examine the provision of sub-rule (1-b), by which, provision of sub-rule (1-a) of the Rules, has been excluded for the vehicle registered before coming into force of the said rule. Sub-rule (1-a) came into statute w.e.f 24.11.2010 and the vehicle bearing registration 3 No. UP-41-T-1173 manufactured in the year 2002 and registered on 22.3.2002. Sub-rule (1-a) came into statute w.e.f 24.11.2010 and the vehicle bearing registration 3 No. UP-41-T-1173 manufactured in the year 2002 and registered on 22.3.2002. Admittedly, the provision of sub-rule (1-a) of the Rules, would not apply to the petitioner, hence the impugned order is hereby set aside. Present petition stands allowed accordingly.” 4. The aforesaid order was further considered in the case of M.P.No.3423/2020 (Shreeram Sharma v. the State of M.P. and another) [Reported in 2021(II) MPWN 5 ] and the Court has held as under : “Section 72 of Motor Vehicles Act does not authorize the Regional Transport Authority to amend Rules. If the Rules are silent on any aspect, then the Regional Transport Authority by incorporating some condition can grant or review permit. But by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that section 72 of Motor Vehicles Act confers unfettered right on Regional Transport Authority to amend Rules itself. When rule 77 (1b) of Rules of 1994 itself provides that amended provision of rule 77 (1a) of Rules of 1994 would not be applicable to the stage carriage which was registered much prior to coming into force of said Rule, then Regional Transport Authority was at fault in deferring the application filed by the petitioner for renewal of permit of bus bearing registration No.M.P-33-E-0199.” 5. It is submitted that once the controversy has already been settled by this Court and it is held that the policy will not be applicable in case of the vehicles which are registered prior to implementation of the policy. In such circumstances, the imposition of a condition is apparently bad in law and against the dictum passed by this Court in the aforesaid cases. 6. Per contra counsel for the respondent/State could not dispute the fact that this Court has already considered the aforesaid issue in the case of Waheed Khan (supra), and Shreeram Sharma (supra), and submit that the petition be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid orders. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The aforesaid aspect was already considered by this Court in the case of Waheed Khan (supra), and Shreeram Sharma (supra), and the Court has categorically held that the notification has no application to the vehicle registered prior to coming into force of the notification dated 24.11.2010. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The aforesaid aspect was already considered by this Court in the case of Waheed Khan (supra), and Shreeram Sharma (supra), and the Court has categorically held that the notification has no application to the vehicle registered prior to coming into force of the notification dated 24.11.2010. There is already consideration made by this Court to the aforesaid aspect in the case of Waheed Khan (supra). 9. Accordingly, the order dated 30.8.2018 passed in the case of Waheed Khan (supra), shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case of the petitioner also. 10. Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of. E-copy/Certified copy as per rules/directions.