2014 Supreme(Raj) 564
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
DINESH MAHESHWARI and V. K. Mathur, JJ.
Narendra Kumar – Appellant
vs
State of Rajasthan and others – Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 116 of 2008
Decided On : 13/01/2014
The grant of permits on the basis of trip is not permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - PERMIT - GRANT - SINGLE TRIP - LEGALITY - The grant of permits on the basis of trip is not permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Fact of the Case:
The case pertains to the grant of permits on the Inter-State route 'Rajgarh to Hissar via Jhumpa' under the Inter-State agreement dated 09.07.1997, entered into between the State of Rajasthan and the State of Haryana. The Regional Transport Authority (RTA) granted 4 permits, of single trip each, to 4 applicants, which was challenged by the unsuccessful appellant, Narendra Kumar, in the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the proposition adopted by the RTA and endorsed by the learned Single Judge, of granting 4 permits of single trip each, is not envisaged by law and cannot be countenanced. The court observed that the term 'permit' means the permission which is issued by the concerned authority, authorising the use of a motor vehicle as transport vehicle, and that the permit to be granted would be definitely providing for minimum and maximum number of daily trips in relation to any route or area.
Issues: 1. Whether the grant of permits on the basis of trip is permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? 2. Whether the RTA's decision to grant 4 permits of single trip each is legal and valid?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of 'permit' in Section 2(31) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the provisions of Sections 70 and 72 of the Act, to conclude that the grant of permits on the basis of trip is not permissible under the Act. The court also noted that the Inter-State Agreement between the State of Rajasthan and the State of Haryana specified the number of permits and trips that could be granted, and that the RTA's decision to grant 4 permits of single trip each exceeded the permissible limit.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and restored S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5646/2005 for reconsideration of the learned Single Judge. The office shall restore the writ petition to its original number and place the same for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 04.02.2014.
Dinesh Maheshwari, J. :
” These 3 intra-court appeals (SAW Nos.116/2008, 41/2008 and 42/2008), filed respectively by the writ petitioner and by the respondents Nos.5 and 4 of CWP No.5646/2005 against the same order dated 21.01.2008, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment.
2. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record with reference to the law applicable, we have formed an opinion that S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5646/2005 deserves to be restored for reconsideration of the learned Single Judge of this Court on the merits of the case. As the matter is proposed to be restored to the file of the writ Court, not much of dilatation on the chequered history and background aspects of the matter appears necessary. Only a brief reference to the relevant facts and background aspects would suffice.
3. The matter relates to grant of permits on Inter-State route ' Rajgarh to Hissar via Jhumpa” under the Inter-State agreement dated 09.07.1997, entered into between the State of Rajasthan and the State of Haryana. Under the said agreement, 5 permits could have been granted by the State of Rajasthan. Earlier, such 5 permits came to be granted but then, 2 of them, as granted in favour of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (' the Corporation” ) came to be cancelled after they were put to challenge. There had been a spate of litigation in relation to the vacancies so created but the ultimate position had been that such vacancies of 2 permits with 4 return trips were ordered to be re-advertised. After re-advertisement, several applicants came up before the concerned Regional Transport Authority (' RTA” ), who proceeded to grant 4 permits, of single trip each, to 4 of the applicants, namely Shri Narendra Kumar (Appellant of SAW No.116/2008 ' œ the writ petitioner), Shri Subey Singh (Appellant of SAW No.41/2008), Shri Bharat Singh (Appellant of SAW No.42/2008) and one Shri Rishi Kumar. Neither the said 4 grantees nor the other applicants were satisfied with the order so passed by RTA, granting 4 permits of one single trip each as against the vacancies of 2 permits of 4 return trips. Thus, the grantees as also the other applicants questioned the order so passed by RTA; and in this manner, 10 appeals came to be preferred before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (' STAT” ), which were dealt with and decided together by the common impugned order dated 29.07.2005.
4. The STAT found the order so passed by the RTA unsustainable in law; and, with reference to the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants, observed, inter alia, as under:-
(Vernacular matter omitted............Ed.)
5. The STAT, thereafter, proceeded to consider the comparative merits of the applicants and ultimately held that the appellant Subey Singh, belonging to Scheduled Caste category and the appellant Bharat Singh, being an Ex-serviceman, were entitled to preference. Therefore, while setting aside the order dated 06.12.2004 as passed by the RTA, the STAT ordered granting of one permit each in favour of Shri Subey Singh and Shri Bharat Singh. The STAT finally ordered as under: -
(Vernacular matter omitted............Ed.)
6. The order so passed by the STAT was questioned in the writ petition leading to these appeals, i.e., S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5646/2005 by the unsuccessful appellant Narendra Kumar, who had earlier been granted the permit of one single trip by the RTA.
7. It appears that before the learned Single Judge, respondents of the writ petition, (the appellants of SAW No.41/2008 and 42/2008, raised the first question about the legality of the proposition adopted by the RTA in granting single trip permit, which practically amounted to granting of half a permit to each of 4 applicants; and it was contended that such a course was entirely impermissible in law. The learned Single Judge proceeded to consider this aspect of the matter and observed that gra