important points
In the matter of grant of permit to individual applicant, the State has no say. The Chief Minister or any authority, other than the statutory authority cannot entertain an application for grant of permit nor can issue any order thereupon.
An independent quasi-judicial body cannot affirm an affidavit together with the State. It has no business to defend the State or the Chief Minister.

Headnote:(a)Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Chapter V – The Act is a self contained Code – All the authorities mentioned therein are statutory authorities must act within the four corners of the Act – Statutory authorities are bound to act in terms of the policy laid down in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India, but per se the same does not authorize any Minister including the Chief Minister to Act in derogation of the statutory provisions. (Para 17)
       (b)Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 70 – Fourth respondent filed the application before the Chief Minister straightaway whose office communicated his order, not once but twice – Respondent No.2 acted thereupon – Such interference on the part of any authority upon whom the Act does not confer any jurisdiction, is wholly unwarranted in law – It interferes with the independent functioning of a quasi judicial authority – A permit, if granted, confers a valuable right and an applicant must earn the same. (Para 19)
       AIR 1979 SC 114: (1978) 4 SCC 290 – Relied upon.
       (c)Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 70 – In the matter of grant of permit to individual applicant, the State has no say – The Chief Minister or any authority, other than the statutory authority, therefore, cannot entertain an application for grant of permit nor can issue any order thereupon. (Para 20)
       AIR 1952 SC 16; AIR 1978 SC 851: (1978) 1 SCC 405 – Relied upon.
       (d)Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 70 – The Chief Minister could not have entertained the application of respondent no.4 nor usurp the function of the Regional Transport Authority – It is illegal – Similarly, respondent No.2 committed a serious illegality in forwarding the same to the respondent No.3 with the purported recommendations of the Chief Minister. (Paras 24 and 25)
       (e)Judicial Propriety – An independent quasi judicial body, like the respondent No.3, is duty bound to place the facts as borne out from the records before the High Court – It could not affirm an affidavit together with the State – It had no business to defend the State or the Chief Minister. (Para 26)
       Facts of the case:
       1.Appellants are the bus owners. They applied for grant of stage carriage permits for different routes before the Regional Transport Officer.
       2.Fourth respondent, a political leader, approached the State Chief Minister directly by a letter for grant of Baijnath - Tikkari - Panchrukhi - 6RT route which was approved by the Chief Minister.
       3.Aggrieved, a writ petition was filed by the appellants. While issuing notice in the said writ petition, operation of the permit granted in favour of the fourth respondent was directed to be stayed by the High Court. However, by reason of the impugned judgment the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellants.
       Findings of the Court :
       Chief Minister could not have entertained the application for grant of permit.
       Result : Appeal allowed with cost.

judgment

S.B. Sinha, J. —

Leave granted.

1.Whether Chief Minister of a State has any role to play in a matter of grant of permit of a Stage Carriage Permit in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 15th September, 2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla, in C.W.P. No. 1217 of 2004.

2.The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Appellants are the bus owners. They applied for grant of stage carriage permits for different routes before the Regional Transport Officer as envisaged under Section 70 of the Act. While Appellant No.1 had applied for grant of route Tikri to Palampur, Palampur to Chahiar and Palampur to Jaisinhpur, Appellant No.2 had applied for grant of permit for the route Palampur to Jaisinhpur, Jaisinhpur to Baijnath and Jaisnhpur to Palampur, Appellant No.3 had applied for the route Indora to Kaaza, Maclodganj to Mandi and Damtal to Manali.

3.Fourth respondent, who is said to have a political connection being a leader of Congress Party, approached the State Chief Minister directly by a letter, which reads thus:-

“The Hon’ble Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla

Subject :-Application regarding route permit

Hon’ble Sir,

With due regards, it is requested that I have previously requested for the route permit, but I was not given any route permit in the meeting of RTA. I have come to the Oakover and I have again stated that no buses are running on the route and still then I was not given any route. It is, therefore, requested that the following route may kindly be granted in my favour. Baijnath Tikkari Panchrukhi 6RT.

This route was notified, but not issued to any one.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(Rajinder Rana)

Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangara”

4.The said letter was addressed on the letter head of Mandal Congress Committee, Rajgir Panchukhi, Himachal Pradesh. Respondent No.4 described himself to be the President thereof. The said letter was received in the official residence of the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister’s office by a letter dated 9th March, 2004 addressed to the Commissioner (Transport), Himachal Pradesh, respondent No.5, directed :-

“It has been approved that permit may be sanctioned in favour of Shri Rajender Rana, VOP Rakkar, Tehsil Baijnath Tikri, Panchrukhi-G RT route. A copy of his application is enclosed.

Commissioner Transport, H.P. is requested to please take further action accordingly and send compliance report to this office.

Sd/-

Dt. 9.3.2004 Additional Secretary to

Chief Minister, HP”

5.The Director Transport-Respondent No.2 herein, in turn, communicated the said order to the Regional Transport Officer by his letter dated 16th March, 2004 asking him to place the said proposal in the next meeting of the Regional Transport Authority after obtaining an application from the applicant in the prescribed format. It furthermore appears that the Chief Minister’s Office again on 9th June, 2004 issued another letter to the second respondent indicating approval for grant of a route permit in favour of the 4th respondent. Respondent No.2 was requested to take action as per observations of the Hon’ble Chief Minister.

6.Indisputably a meeting of the Authority was held on 3rd July, 2004 but no decision was taken on the applications filed by the appellants, although the same were made prior in time to that of the one filed by the respondent No.4, who had approached the Chief Minister. A Stage Carriage Permit was granted in favour of the fourth respondent for the said route.

7.Aggrieved, a writ petition was filed by the appellants before the Himachal Pradesh High Court which was marked as CWP No. 1217 of 2004. While issuing notice in the said writ petition, operation of the permit granted in favour of the fourth respondent was directed to be stayed by the High Court.

8.In their counter-affidavit, the State of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 405

2008(2) Supreme 688Supreme Court of india(From Himachal Pradesh High Court)S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.Pancham Chand and others — PetitionersversusState of Himachal Pradesh and others — RespondentsAppeal (civil) 1732 of 2008(Arising out of SLP No. 1615 of 2006)Decided on : 04-03-2008

Cases Referred (3)