Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Goutam Bhaduri, Deepak Kumar Tiwari, JJ.
State Of Chhattisgarh - Petitioner
Versus
Anand Mishra S/o Late Shri Jaiprakash Mishra - Respondent
WA No. 292 of 2022, WA No. 293 of 2022, WA No. 294 of 2022, WA No. 295 of 2022, WA No. 296 of 2022, WA No. 297 of 2022, WA No. 298 of 2022, WA No. 309 of 2022
Decided On : 11-07-2022
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Grant of Stage Carriage Permit - Section 89(2) - Rules 1994 - 28, 38, 65, 95, 96, 107, 111, 138, 159, 176, 211, 213 - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 74 of the Rules, 1994, which mandates the disposal of permit applications within 60 days, and the duty to communicate the order of grant of permit. The court also considered the impact of the nation-wide lockdown on the time limitation for judicial and quasi-judicial functions, as extended by the Supreme Court. The interpretation of 'refusal' under Section 89 of the Act, 1988 was also deliberated, emphasizing that non-issuance of a permit despite its grant on papers amounts to 'refusal'. The court highlighted the obligation of the Authority to issue the physical permit within a reasonable time and rejected the argument that the permit would lose its efficacy after a prescribed period, emphasizing that the State Authority cannot benefit from its own wrong.
Fact of the Case:
The Transporters filed an application for a stage carriage permit, which was not decided within the prescribed time limit. Despite the grant of permit on papers, the physical permit was not issued, leading to a series of appeals and petitions before the High Court and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the non-issuance of the physical permit despite its grant on papers amounted to 'refusal', and the State Authority could not benefit from its own wrong. The court upheld the direction to issue the physical permit within a period of 7 days, emphasizing the obligation of the Authority to fulfill its duties.
Issues: The issues revolved around the non-issuance of the stage carriage permit despite its grant on papers, the impact of the nation-wide lockdown on time limitations, and the interpretation of 'refusal' under Section 89 of the Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the non-issuance of the physical permit amounted to 'refusal', emphasized the obligation of the Authority to issue the permit within a reasonable time, and rejected the argument that the permit would lose its efficacy after a prescribed period.
Final Decision: All the appeals were dismissed, and the Officers of the concerned Authority were directed to issue the physical permit to the respondents within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.
JUDGMENT :
Goutam Bhaduri, J.
1. Heard.
2. The instant bunch of appeals are against the common order passed by the learned Single Bench on 5.5.2022 in WPC No.1800/2022 and other connected petitions, whereby, the petitions filed by the State Authority and private respondents/Transporters against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT), which is constituted under Section 89(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “the Act, 1988”), were dismissed with specific directions.
3. The issue in these writ appeals is similar, therefore, they are being adjudicated simultaneously.
4. The nucleus of the dispute starts from an application, which was filed by the Transporters for grant of stage carriage permit in the month of September 2017. The order of the RTA dated 19.12.2019 would show that after the application for grant of permit was filed, it could not be decided in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules 1994 (in short “the Rules, 1994”). As per sub-rule (4) of Rule 74 of the Rules, 1994, the prescribed time limit for disposal of the application for grant of stage carriage permit is 60 days. The Rules, 1994 was promulgated in exercise of powers conferred by sections 28, 38, 65, 95, 96, 107, 111, 138, 159, 176, 211 and 213 of the Act, 1988. Since the application for stage carriage permit was not decided, the respondents herein preferred a writ petition before the High Court, wherein, this Court vide order dated 22.8.2019 directed to dispose of the application filed for stage carriage permit within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. It was upon thereafter, the order dated 19.12.2019 was passed by the RTA, wherein, a direction was issued that after communication of this order, within a period of 30 days, the Transporters shall obtain the permit and start plying of the vehicles. The case of the respondents/Transporters before the learned Single Bench and the STAT was that this order was not communicated to them. The order of the learned Single Judge would show that the issue that the order granting permit dated 19.12.2019 was not communicated to the Transporters, was not in much dispute.
5. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 74 of the Rules, 1994 prescribes the procedure, which reads as under :
(1) xxx
(2) xxx
(3) Transport Authority shall after considering the application, as per provisions of law, pass an appropriate order thereon and communicate.”
6. A plain reading of the sub-rule (3) of Rule 74 of the Rules, 1994 would show that it is the mandate duty casted upon the authority to communicate the order of grant of permit. It is not in much dispute before this Court that the grant of permit was not communicated to the respondents. In the month of March 2020, for the first time, the respondents came to know that the order of grant of permit has been passed in their favour and thereafter, they applied for issuance of permit.
7. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact, which is recorded in the order of the learned Single Judge, that the Supreme Court on 10.1.2022, on a Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 and other connected application, including suo motu writ petition, extended the period of limitation with respect to judicial and quasi judicial functions on account of nation-wide lock-down, which started w.e.f. 25.3.2020. After ease out of such period, subsequently, the respondent-Transporters applied for issuance of permit on 17.12.2020 followed by a reminder in the month of September 2021. Eventually, since no order was passed, an appeal was filed before the STAT, which came to be decided by the order dated 29.1.2022, whereby, the STAT passed a direction to issue permit within a period of 7 days from the date of the said order and the compliance report was directed to be filed before the STAT . The said order of the STAT was subject of challenge before the learned Single Judge, in diffe
The obligation of the Authority to issue the physical permit within a reasonable time and the interpretation of 'refusal' under Section 89 of the Act, 1988.
The court affirmed that non-communication by authorities regarding permit decisions invalidates claims of automatic cancellation due to inaction, highlighting the Transport Authority's duty to inform....
The exercise of discretion in granting stage carriage permits requires consideration of applicants' relative merits, especially in the absence of specific statutory guidelines governing such situatio....
The Regional Transport Authority cannot impose time limits on stage carriage permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The relevant date for considering applications is the date of consideration, not the date of application. The Court emphasized the need for a liberal approach in condoning delay to ensure substantial....
Suo motu applications for stage carriage route permits impermissible without prior route notification and publication; authorities must strictly adhere to procedural rules and binding precedents to p....
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
