JUDGMENT - P.C.:---We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants, learned Advocate General for State and the learned Counsel appearing for Pune Municipal Corporation. We have also perused the record of the case including the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.

2. The appellants are the owners of what are known as Six Seater Auto Rickshaws, who were earlier allowed to ply within the entire limits of Pune Municipal Corporation. They are all holders of individual contract carriage permits issued by the respondent No. 1 Regional Transport Authority (RTA). The appellants have impugned before the learned Single Judge the decision taken by the State Transport Authority (STA) on 9-6-1998 to restrict the plying of 6 + 1 Seater Auto Rickshaws outside all Municipal Corporation areas so that they do not ply within the city corporation limits. Certain other incidental directions were also given by the STA.

3. Pursuant to the communication by the STA, the RTA Pune in its meeting held on 5-2-1999 took a decision to allow Six Seater Autorickshaw permit holders to ply their vehicles outside the erstwhile limits of Pune and Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation in the rest of the Pune district. This decision of the STA and RTA was challenged before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. By order dated 7-4-2000 the Tribunal upheld the notice and dismissed the appeals. The appellants then approached this Court by filing writ petitions which were heard by the learned Single Judge and were ultimately dismissed. (See also 2001(Supp. 2) Bom.C.R. 799)

4. Before the learned Single Judge the appellants raised mainly four contentions. First it was contended that the directions to ban the operation of Six Seater Auto rickshaws could have been given only in the manner prescribed under section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short the "Act", by the State Government by issuing a notification. That has not been done. There is no other power in the STA. Consequently the decision by the STA/RTA purporting to act under section 68 of the Act is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. Secondly it was contended that the decision of the STA amounts to abdication of the power conferred on it. The STA has acted at the behest of the State Government based on the statement made by the Minister for Transport in the Assembly. Thirdly, it was contended that the decision to ban Six Seater Autorickshaws disclosed total non application of mind in as much as material already considered and found not sufficient to justify the ban of operation of Six Seater Auto Rickshaws has again being considered for giving effect to the same purpose. Fourthly, it was contended that the condition of the permit could be varied only if it was a condition. In the instant case plying in a particularly area is not a condition of permit. This could have been done only by the State Government by issuing a notification under section 115 of the Act.

5. The learned Judge after carefully considering the entire record and scrutinizing the relevant provisions answered all the points against the appellants. The learned Judge held that the STA has based its decision in exercise of its powers under section 68(3). Under section 68(3) the power has been conferred upon the authority to co-ordinate and regulate the activities and policies of the RTA. The entire policy of section 68(3) is the need or desire to provide for a uniform policy for an area or areas in public interest. Thus section 68(3) has conferred specific power on STA for the purpose of regulating the activities and policies of RTA by issuing directions including directions to either allowing the movement of Six Seater Auto Rickshaws or not. The power of the State Government under section 67 was held to be independent of the power conferred on the STA under section 68(3). The learned Judge also considered the nature of the power of the STA under section 68(3). It was held that section 68(3) contemplates a decision makin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document