Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 627
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANDEEP MEHTA, FARJAND ALI, JJ.
Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Rameshwar Lal - Appellant
Versus
Secretary, State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahkar Marg, Jaipur - Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1080,526, 927/2019 AND D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13059/2019
Decided on : 27-04-2022
For the Appellant :Mr. Bharat Vyas, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deendayal Purohit, Mr. B.L. Tiwari.
For the Respondent: Mr. R.S. Rajawat, Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 100, 103(4) with Section 80, 80(3) – Appeal – Appellants writ petitioners are private bus operators plying buses on strength of State Carriage Permits granted to them for designated routes - A modified Scheme was introduced by State Transport Authority in year 2015 and applications were invited for inclusion of new routes in specified routes covered by existing permits - Held, Court are of firm view that arguments advanced, questioning correctness of view taken by learned Single Bench in Judgment , lacks merit - Ex-facie, on a bare reading of statutory provision i.e. second proviso to Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it becomes clear that proviso governs all purported extensions/variations in specified routes. The proviso mandates that in case of variation, the termini shall not be altered and distance covered by variation shall not exceed 24 Kms. A plain reading of first part of proviso would indicate that in case, State Carriage permit holder has a valid permit for operating from Point A to Point B then the route can be diverted without altering the termini i.e. point B. In such a situation, variation would be restricted to 24 Kms. without altering initial stop and termini under original permit. In second situation, which deals with extension, it shall not exceed 24 Kms. from termini. This would imply that route can be extended to a maximum distance of 24 Kms. from Point No.B which was original termini point approved under permit. There is no reason for us to accept argument of Shri Vyas that this proviso has to be read in isolation and that sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act itself permits inclusion of a new route or an altered route without it being governed by proviso. Such interpretation would amount doing violence with statute and is unacceptable – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
MEHTA, J.
1. These special appeals and writ petition involve common controversy relating to inclusion of routes beyond 24 Kms. In existing state carriage permits and hence, the same have been heard and are being decided together by this order.
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1080/2019 has been preferred by the appellant Anil Kumar being aggrieved by the rejection of his interim relief (stay application) by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 02.08.2019 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9667/2019 at Jaipur Bench [Now registered as Writ Petition No.13059/2019 before this Court]. The said Single Bench writ petition has also been tagged with the instant bunch and hence, the same is also being decided by this order.
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.526/2019 and 927/2019 have been filed by Shri Mool Singh with almost identical prayers for assailing the Judgment dated 30.01.2019 passed by the leaned Single Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.9584/2018 and 9604/2018 filed by the appellant writ petitioner Mool Singh.
2. Briefly stated background facts necessary for disposal of the appeals and the writ petition are noted herein below:
The appellants writ petitioners Mool Singh and Shri Anil Kumar are private bus operators plying buses on the strength of State Carriage Permits granted to them for designated routes. A modified Scheme was introduced by the State Transport Authority in the year 2015 and applications were invited for inclusion of new routes in the specified routes covered by existing permits. The applications filed by the respective applicants were allowed by the State Transport Authority and the inclusions as prayed for were permitted. By way of inclusion, the existing permit routes of the petitioner Anil Kumar as well as the private respondents impleaded in the writ petitions filed by Shri Mool Singh and the route of Shri Mool Singh himself were extended to distances beyond 24 Kms. which is the bone of contention between the parties before this Court. The learned Single Bench, accepted the writ petitions filed by Shri Mool Singh and directed that the length of the original route under the permit could not be exceeded beyond 24 Kms. through inclusion under the modified scheme as the plain language of second proviso to Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act prohibits such extension/inclusion. As a consequence, not only were the extensions granted in favour of the private respondents were quashed, a similar order passed by the State Transport Authority extending the permit of the second writ petitioner Mool Singh himself beyond the permissible limits (as per proviso to Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act) was also quashed.
Anil Kumar was having a State Carriage Permit on the route “Bikaner to Ratangarh”, and was granted extension of 88 Kms. Till Tamkor by way of inclusion in the original State Carriage Permit. Such extension was challenged by Shri Abdul Rashid by filing an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which was allowed and the extended route permit of the petitioner Anil Kumar was quashed by order dated 17.05.2019. The said order was challenged by Anil Kumar by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9667/2019 before the Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur. The learned Single Bench at Jaipur Bench rejected the interim stay application of the petitioner by order dated 02.08.2019 which is assailed by Shri Anil Kumar in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1080/2019 (No.1222/2019 before Rajasthan High Court Bench at Jaipur).
3. Shri Bharat Vyas, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Deendayal Purohit, Advocate representing Shri Anil Kumar, vehemently and fervently urged that the view taken by the learned Single Bench while deciding the writ petitions of Gopal Purohit and Mool Singh, is absolutely illegal and dehors the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Shri Vyas urged that the Transport Department, invited applications from the aspiring permit holders for extension/inclusion
