1976 Supreme(Raj) 175
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
D.P.Gupta, J.
Bhag Chand - Appellant
Versus
State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Anr. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1397 of 1976.
Decided On : 22-01-1976
A Regional Transport Authority (RTA) has the inherent power to revoke a grant of permit obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, even in the absence of a specific provision for revocation in the Motor Vehicles Act or Rules.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 60 - REVOCATION OF PERMIT - GRANT OF PERMIT BASED ON MISREPRESENTATION - INHERENT POWER OF RTA TO REVOKE GRANT - NO NOTICE REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 60.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner applied for a non-temporary stage carriage permit on Bhadra-Bhatukala route, representing that he had a ready vehicle of 1962 model. RTA granted permits to petitioner and another applicant, Yaseen Khan, allowing them 60 days to obtain permits on vehicles of the prescribed model. Petitioner later submitted an application to RTA stating that the vehicle was "not good enough" and requested a permit on another vehicle of 1934 model. RTA revoked the grant of permit to petitioner, finding that he had misrepresented facts to obtain preference over other applicants. Petitioner challenged the revocation before the Tribunal, which upheld the RTA's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had deliberately misrepresented facts before the RTA by falsely stating that he possessed a ready vehicle of 1962 model to obtain an unfair advantage and preference over other applicants. The court held that the petitioner's conduct disentitled him from availing discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the RTA had the authority to revoke the grant of permit to the petitioner without following the procedure prescribed under Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act? 2. Whether the RTA had inherent power to revoke the grant of permit based on misrepresentation? 3. Whether the petitioner's conduct disentitled him from availing discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Rule 86B of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951, provides only one of the contingencies in which a permit may be revoked, and that the absence of a specific provision for revocation in other circumstances does not mean that the RTA cannot revoke a permit for proper and valid reasons. 2. The court held that the provisions of Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which prescribe a procedure for cancellation or suspension of a permit, are not applicable to a situation where a permit has not yet been issued. 3. The court held that quasi-judicial tribunals, including the RTA, possess inherent powers to make necessary orders for the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process. In this case, the RTA was justified in revoking the grant of permit to the petitioner to prevent the abuse of its process.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the petitioner's revision petition against the RTA's order revoking the grant of permit.
JUDGMENT
1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties I am in complete agreement with the learned Member of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') that the petitioner committed gross and deliberate mis-representation in the present case and the grant of permit nude in favour of the petitioner was, therefore, rightly revoked by the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTA').
2. The petitioner applied for the grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit on Bhadra-Bhatukala route and when his aforesaid application crime up for consideration before the RTA on May 5, 1975 the petitioner represented that he was a displaced operator and that he had a ready vehicle of 1962 model, bearing registration No. RJK 3554 Another applicant, Yaseen Khan also represented before the RTA that he had a ready vehicle of 1962 model. Applying a uniform standard that permits be granted to displaced operators owning ready vehicles, of permissible models, the RTA granted two permits, one each to the petitioner and Yaseen Khan and allowed them 60 days' time to obtain permits on vehicles of the prescribed model. The petitioner has not now denied the fact that the vehicle No RJK 3554. which the petitioner purchased at an auction sale made on behalf of the State Government on March 23, 1974 and a letter of confirmation respect of which sale was issued to the petitioner on April 29, 1974 was a vehicle of 1962 model but it was a 1959 mode vehicle. It appears from the receipt granted to the petitioner on April 29, 1974 (Annexure P/5) that the possession of the vehicle in question was given over to the petitioner as early as on March, 23, 1974 and it has be borne in mind that more than a year thereafter, the petitioner represented before the RTA that the said vehicle was of 1982 model. After obtaining a preference over other applicants by misrepresentation of facts, namely that he possessed a 1962 model vehicle, the petitioner submitted an application to the RTA (a copy of which is Annexure P/6 on record) stating that the vehicle RJK 3554 against which a permit was granted to him on the route was "not good enough for this route" and as such the permit may be issued to him on another vehicle No. RJI 1181 of 1934 model. The matter was placed in the meeting of the RTA and after hearing the petitioner, the RTA came to the conclusion that the petitioner mis-represented the fact in order o obtain preference over other applicants be grant of permits on the ground that he was possessed of a ready vehicle of 1962 model and for that reason, the RTA. revoked the grant of permit made in favour of the petitioner. Against this order of the RTA dated July 5, 1975 the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Tribunal. As I have observed earlier the Tribunal, after consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that there was a clear case of gross and deliberate mis-representation on the part of the petitioner and that the RTA in these circumstances was perfectly justified in revoking the grant of permit in favour of the petitioner. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was, therefore, dismissed by the order of the Tribunal dated July 31, 1975 The petitioner has came up before this Court against the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal.
3. I am of the view that the petitioner, no doubt appears to have deliberately mis-represented the facts before the RTA by falsely stating before it that he was possessed of a ready vehicle of 1962 model in order to obtain unfair advantage so as to gel preference over other applicants for grant of a permit to him, while the vehicle possessed by him was admittedly of 1959 model and by his aforesaid conduct the petitioner has dis-entitled himself from availing of the discretionary relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In similar circumstances, Bhandari J., as he then was
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
