Back
Bombay High Court
COUTO,PAUNIKAR
Laxmi Motor Service - Appellant
Versus
Regional Transport Authority, for Goa, Panaji, Goa - Respondent
Decided On : 03/18/1985
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - Ss. 44(1), 44(3)(b), 46, 47 - STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - JURISDICTION TO GRANT PERMITS - RESOLUTION OF STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY TO GRANT PERMITS - VALIDITY - NOTIFICATION CONSTITUTING REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - DIRECTION TO STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY TO CEASE TO EXERCISE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS - VALIDITY - CRITERIA FOR GRANT OF PERMITS - REASONABLENESS - AVAILABILITY OF BUSES WITH APPLICANT - RELEVANCE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, a firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932, carrying on the business of providing motor transport to the public, applied for Inter-State stage carriage permits on the Panjim-Belgaum, Panjim-Bangalore, and Panjim-Mangalore routes. The Regional Transport Authority for Goa granted all such permits to the 7th respondent, Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd., a Government company. Petitioners challenged the grant of permits to the 7th respondent on four grounds: (a) the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to consider the applications in view of a Resolution passed by the State Transport Authority on 20th August, 1982, (b) the Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority, who was also the Law Secretary to the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, ought to have declined to consider the applications, (c) the permits could not have been granted to the 7th respondent since it had no buses available at the relevant time, and (d) the mark system adopted by the Regional Transport Authority was capricious.
Finding of the Court:
1. The State Transport Authority's Resolution of 20th August, 1982, purporting to grant itself all types of permits/renewals/transfers, etc. on Inter-Regional or Inter-State routes, was invalid as it was issued after the creation of the Regional Transport Authority for the region of Goa, which had exclusive jurisdiction to grant such permits. 2. The Notification dated 18th August, 1982, constituting the Regional Transport Authority for Goa and directing the State Transport Authority to cease to exercise and discharge powers and functions in relation to the area comprising Goa District, was valid and not a direction under S. 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 3. The petitioners, having failed to challenge the Notification dated 18th August, 1982, could not raise the question of the validity of the impugned decision of the Regional Transport Authority on that ground. 4. The Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority, being the Law Secretary to the Government, was not disqualified from taking part in the decision to grant permits to the 7th respondent, as he had no financial or other interest in the 7th respondent and was not administratively concerned with the subject of transport. 5. The mark system adopted by the Regional Transport Authority for consideration of applications for grant of stage carriage permits, based on the model and year of manufacture of the vehicle, experience of the operator, financial position, facility of well-equipped workshop, availability of stand-by vehicles, well-equipped office, telephone facilities, arrangement of office with other parties, and past performance, was reasonable and permissible. 6. The decision of the Regional Transport Authority to grant permits to the 7th respondent was not vitiated by the fact that the 7th respondent did not have buses available at the relevant time, as it had already registered the buses with the Regional Transport Authority and was granted time to produce the buses within a specified period.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Transport Authority had jurisdiction to grant permits in view of its Resolution of 20th August, 1982? 2. Whether the Notification dated 18th August, 1982, constituting the Regional Transport Authority for Goa and directing the State Transport Authority to cease to exercise and discharge powers and functions in relation to the area comprising Goa District, was valid? 3. Whether the Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority was disqualified from taking part in the decision to grant permits to the 7th respondent? 4. Whether the mark system adopted by the Regional Transport Authority for consideration of applications for grant of stage carriage permits was reasonable and permissible? 5. Whether the decision of the Regional Transport Authority to grant permits to the 7th respondent was vitiated by the fact that the 7th respondent did not have buses available at the relevant time?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The State Transport Authority's Resolution of 20th August, 1982, purporting to grant itself all types of permits/renewals/transfers, etc. on Inter-Regional or Inter-State routes, was invalid as it was issued after the creation of the Regional Transport Authority for the region of Goa, which had exclusive jurisdiction to grant such permits. 2. The Notification dated 18th August, 1982, constituting the Regional Transport Authority for Goa and directing the State Transport Authority to cease to exercise and discharge powers and functions in relation to the area comprising Goa District, was valid and not a direction under S. 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 3. The petitioners, having failed to challenge the Notification dated 18th August, 1982, could not raise the question of the validity of the impugned decision of the Regional Transport Authority on that ground. 4. The Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority, being the Law Secretary to the Government, was not disqualified from taking part in the decision to grant permits to the 7th respondent, as he had no financial or other interest in the 7th respondent and was not administratively concerned with the subject of transport. 5. The mark system adopted by the Regional Transport Authority for consideration of applications for grant of stage carriage permits, based on the model and year of manufacture of the vehicle, experience of the operator, financial position, facility of well-equipped workshop, availability of stand-by vehicles, well-equipped office, telephone facilities, arrangement of office with other parties, and past performance, was reasonable and permissible. 6. The decision of the Regional Transport Authority to grant permits to the 7th respondent was not vitiated by the fact that the 7th respondent did not have buses available at the relevant time, as it had already registered the buses with the Regional Transport Authority and was granted time to produce the buses within a specified period.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed with costs.
COUTO, J. :- These Writ Petitions, both directed against a Resolution passed on 29th November, 1983 by the Regional Transport Authority for Goa declining to grant several Inter-State stage carriage permits to the petitioners give rise to the same questions of law. Hence, they will be disposed of by a common judgment.
2. Petitioners are a firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932 and they carry on the business of providing motor transport to the public. Their experience in such kind of business extends for over 15 years and they maintain an up-to-date garage and booking offices. They are also financially solvent and hold stage carriage permits on the Panjim-Bombay and Panjim-Poona routes. In addition, they hold permits under S.63(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. By a notice published in the local newspapers on 1st December, 1982, the Directorate of Transport invited applications for grant of stage carriage permits, inter alia, on the Panjim-Belgaum route, Panjim-Bangalore route and Panjim-Mangalore route. Petitioners applied for permits on all such routes. However, the Regional Transport Authority for Goa, in its meeting held on 29th November, 1983, granted all such permits to the 7th respondent, Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd.
3. It is this decision of the Regional Transport Authority granting permits to the 7th respondent that is being challenged in these writ petitions.
4. Petitioners assail the said Resolution granting the permits to the 7th respondent on four grounds, namely :-
(a) The Regional Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to consider the applications to grant the stage carriage permits in view of the Resolution of the State Transport Authority taken in its meeting dated 20th August, 1982;
(b) The Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority, Shri U. D. Sharma, happens also to be the Law Secretary to the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu and, therefore, he ought to have declined to consider the applications when the 7th respondent, a Government company, was one of the applicants;
© The said permits could not, in any event, have been granted to the 7th respondent since at the relevant time of their grant, the 7th respondent had no buses available for the routes; and
(d) The mark system adopted by the Regional Transport Authority is capricious inasmuch as there is no reasonable ground for the difference in the marks given.
We will, therefore, address ourselves to each of the above grounds of challenge.
5. As regards the first ground, namely the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority to consider the applications to grant the stage carriage permits in challenge, Mr. S. K. Kakodkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that by its Resolution dated 20th August, 1982, the State Transport Authority has specifically decided, in the exercise of the powers vested in it by S.44(3)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act and with effect from the approval of the Resolution, that the State Transport Authority itself would grant all types of permits/renewals/transfers, etc. on Inter-Regional or Inter-State routes including national permits and in respect of routes and/or permits should perform all the duties to be performed by the Regional Transport Authority constituted under the Notification No. 6/27/82-HD(G) for Goa region. Now, the learned counsel contended, once the State Transport Authority has found it fit to pass the aforesaid Resolution and decide to grant itself all types of permits/renewals/transfers on Inter-Regional or Inter-State routes including national permits, it necessarily follows that the Regional Transport Authority created under the aforesaid Notification had ceased to have any power therefor.
6. Sec.44(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 provides that the State Government shall, by Notification in the Official Gazette, constitute for the State a State Transport Authority to exercise and discharge the powers and functions specified in sub-sec.(3), and shall in like manner consti
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
