Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : C.M. Lodha,Dwarka Prasad,N.M. Kasliwal,K.S. Sidhu,Mahendra Bhushan
Jagan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 144 of 1979
Decided On : 08/07/1979
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 48(3)(XXI), 57(8), 64(1)(B), 64-A - VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITIONS - APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF ROUTE - TREATED AS APPLICATION FOR NEW PERMIT - PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 57(3), (4), (5) TO BE FOLLOWED - APPEAL BY RIVAL PERMIT HOLDER - MAINTAINABILITY - PERSON AGGRIEVED - REVISION UNDER SECTION 64-A - LOCUS STANDI - ILLEGAL ORDER - RESTORATION BY WRIT - DISCRETION OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a permit holder, applied for variation of his permit route. The Regional Transport Authority (RTA) allowed the variation without following the procedure under Section 57(3), (4), (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. A rival permit holder, Sagruddin, appealed to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT), which set aside the RTA's order. The petitioner challenged the STAT's order, arguing that Sagruddin was not a person aggrieved and that the STAT had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's application for variation of route should have been treated as an application for a new permit under Section 57(8) of the Act and that the RTA should have followed the procedure prescribed under Section 57(3), (4), and (5). The court further held that the RTA's order allowing the variation was illegal and could not be sustained in law.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's application for variation of route should have been treated as an application for a new permit under Section 57(8) of the Act? 2. Whether the RTA followed the procedure prescribed under Section 57(3), (4), and (5) of the Act? 3. Whether the RTA's order allowing the variation was legal and proper? 4. Whether Sagruddin was a person aggrieved by the RTA's order? 5. Whether the STAT had jurisdiction to entertain Sagruddin's appeal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that an application for variation of the conditions of a permit, including a new route or routes or a new area, must be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit under Section 57(8) of the Act. 2. The court held that the RTA did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 57(3), (4), and (5) of the Act before allowing the variation of the petitioner's permit. 3. The court held that the RTA's order allowing the variation was illegal and could not be sustained in law. 4. The court did not decide whether Sagruddin was a person aggrieved by the RTA's order, as it held that the RTA's order was illegal and that setting aside the STAT's order would result in the restoration of an illegal order. 5. The court did not decide whether the STAT had jurisdiction to entertain Sagruddin's appeal, as it held that the RTA's order was illegal and that setting aside the STAT's order would result in the restoration of an illegal order.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the RTA's order allowing the variation of the petitioner's permit was illegal and that setting aside the STAT's order would result in the restoration of an illegal order.
2. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the point which has been referred to us need not be decided in this case as the case can be disposed of on other points.
3. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass. The petitioner Jagan Singh was granted permit on Chirawa to Udika route via Devroad-Surajgarh-Jakhod on September 10, 1971, for a period of three years. The route was extended from Chirawa to Sultana by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, by its order dated April 10, 1972. Subsequently, a portion of the route, Chirawa to Devroad, came under the scheme of nationalisation from June 5, 1974. Consequently, that portion of the route i.e., Chirawa to Devroad, was curtailed and the petitioner’s remaining route was divided in two portions, namely, Sultana to Chirawa and Devroad to Udika. It further appears that from June 5, 1974 to July 23, 1978, the petitioner plied on one portion of the route only viz., Udika to Devroad and did not ply on the other portion of the route i.e., Chirawa to Sultana. However, he made an application before the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, on March 28, 1978, for diversion of his route - Udika to Sultana via Surajgarh, Raghunathpura and Shyamlu. After obtaining report from the District Transport Officer, Jhunjhunu, the Regional Transport Authority allowed diversion of the petitioner’s route via Surajgarh, Raghunathpura-Shyamlu by its order dated October 25, 1978.
4. At this stage, it may be mentioned that the Non-petitioner No. 2, Sagruddin, was an operator on the Chirawa-Sultana-Jhunjhunu route. Being aggrieved by the grant of diversion of the petitioner’s route, Sagruddin filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, for setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated October 25, 1978. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, by its order dated January 11, 1979, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated October 25, 1978.
5. The petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by this writ petition and has contended that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain Sagruddin’s appeal under Section 64 (1) (b) of the Act as he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved by variation of the, conditions of the permit held by the petitioner. But we shall presently show that it is not necessary to decide this point as this petition is liable to be dismissed on other grounds.
6. It may be pointed out that the Regional Transport Authority could not varied the conditions of the petitioner’s permit of its own accord under Section 48 (3) (xxi), but an application was made by the petitioner for variation of the conditions of the permit by allowing him to divert his route through new vias. Such an application must be treated as an application for grant of a new permit und
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
