Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1424 (ALL)

Manoj Kumar Singh v. State of U. P.

2023-05-24

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA

body2023
JUDGMENT Heard Shri G.K. Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Sharad Chandra Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents. 2. Present writ petition has been preferred for a direction to respondent no.2 to decide the applications of the petitioners and to restore the old time table granted to the petitioners. 3. It appears from the record that petitioner no.1 is registered owner of Vehicle No.UP-92-T-7862 duly insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. He has been granted permit by Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Jhansi on the route known as Orai to Konch Via Hardoi Gujar, valid from 10.12.2021 to 9.12.2026. The total length of route of petitioner no.1 is 28 Kms and he has been granted time table dated 10.12.2021 by the RTA, Jhansi to ply his vehicles on the aforesaid route 03 trips per day. 4. The petitioner no.2 is registered owner of Vehicle No.UP-93-E6140 duly insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. He has been granted permit by Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Jhansi on the route known as Orai to Konch Via Hardoi Gujar, valid from 24.1.2022 to 23.1.2027. The total length of route of petitioner no.2 is 28 Kms and he has been granted time table dated 25.1.2022 by the RTA, Jhansi to ply his vehicles on the aforesaid route 03 trips per day. 5. The petitioner no.3 is registered owner of Vehicle No.UP-92-AT0599 duly insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. He has been granted permit by RTA, Jhansi on the route known as Orai to Konch Via Hardoi Gujar, valid from 20.12.2021 to 19.12.2026. The total length of route of petitioner no.3 is 28 Kms and he has been granted time table dated 20.12.2021 by the RTA, Jhansi to ply his vehicles on the aforesaid route 03 trips per day. 6. The petitioner no.4 is registered owner of Vehicle No.UP-22-T6406 duly insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd. He has been granted permit by RTA, Jhansi on the route known as Orai to Nadigaon Via Konch, valid from 18.5.2022 to 17.5.2027. The total length of route of petitioner no.4 is 50 Kms and he has been granted time table dated 20.5.2022 by the RTA, Jhansi to ply his vehicles on the aforesaid route 02 trips per day. 7. The total length of route of petitioner no.4 is 50 Kms and he has been granted time table dated 20.5.2022 by the RTA, Jhansi to ply his vehicles on the aforesaid route 02 trips per day. 7. The petitioner no.5 is registered owner of Vehicle No.UP-92-T4582 duly insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. He has been granted permit by RTA, Jhansi on the route known as Orai to Salaiya Via Konch, Kailiya, valid from 19.1.2022 to 18.1.2027. The total length of route of petitioner no.5 is 55 Kms and he has been granted time table dated 11.5.2022 by the RTA, Jhansi to ply his vehicles on the aforesaid route 02 trips per day. 8. It is contended that all the petitioners are plying their respective vehicle on their respective routes and regularly paying tax of their vehicles. It is alleged that behind the back of the petitioners a meeting of RTA, Jhansi was held on 5.12.2022 in which a resolution was passed changing/amending the time tables earlier granted to the petitioners curtailing the trips of the petitioners from 3 trips to 2 trips and from 2 trips to single trip. The variation in time table amounts to variation in conditions of permits and the same cannot be done without giving at least one month notice to the operator concerned as has been contemplated under Section 72 (2) (xxii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "MV Act"). The entire exercise has been done by respondent no.2 in illegal and arbitrary manner without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is also contended that the petitioners have already moved detailed representations for ventilating their grievances but till date the same are unattended. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Section 72 of the MV Act provides for grant of stage carriage permit. Subsection (1) of Section 72 provides "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." The said proviso does not prohibit the curtailment in regard to portion of route applied for any valid reason. Clauses (iii) and (iv) of Section 72(2) of the MV Act clearly provides that a time-table for the running of the vehicle has to be approved by the R.T. A. and that has to be exhibited on the vehicle and at specified stands and halts on the route or within the area and the permit should also specify 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. If those trips have to be increased or decreased then that would result in the change of the condition of the permit. (Ref. Ram Kumar v. Secretary, RTA, Bikaner & Ors., AIR 1993 Rajasthan 30). It is submitted that as per Section 72 (2) (xxii) the Regional Transport Authority may vary the conditions of the permit or attach to the permit further conditions after giving notice of not less than one month. It is contended that no such notice was ever issued to the petitioners and as such the action of the respondents is not justified. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his submissions, has also placed reliance on Rule 56 of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 (in short "MV Rules"), which provides that the quorum to constitute a meeting of the Regional Transport Authority shall be one, in case the authority consists of only one member; or two, in case the authority consists of two or three members. No quorum shall be necessary for a reconvened meeting adjourned for the want of quorum. The Chairman, if unable to attend a meeting shall nominate a member to act as chairman at the meeting. The Chairman, or the acting Chairman nominated under sub-rule (3) shall have a second or casting vote. The Regional Transport Authority shall meet at such time and at such places as the Chairman may appoint: Provided that the authority shall meet not less than once in two months unless the State Transport Authority otherwise directs. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Regional Transport Authority may be directed to consider the representations of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law within stipulated period. 11. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that in case any representation of the petitioners is pending consideration, the same would be decided strictly in accordance with law expeditiously. 12. 11. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that in case any representation of the petitioners is pending consideration, the same would be decided strictly in accordance with law expeditiously. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as considering the provisions of MV Act and MV Rules, we are of the considered opinion that Regional Transport Authority is competent enough to redress the grievance of the petitioner regarding change of time table and trips. Accordingly, the petitioners would be at liberty to press their applications before the Regional Transport Authority. Needless to say, the grievance of the petitioners will be addressed by the Regional Transport Authority strictly in accordance with law and as per the MV Act and MV Rules preferably on its next meeting or in any case within two months but certainly after giving opportunity to all the stake holders in the matter. 13. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.