The Secretary of State Transport Authority lacks jurisdiction to decide on Stage Carriage Permit applications, which must be handled by the State Transport Authority as per the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Precisely the grouse of the petitioner, as has been raised in the petition at hand and further canvassed by Mr. Anand Moudgil, petitioner in person, who has joined the proceedings through video- conferencing, is that Secretary, State Transport Authority, Himachal Pradesh, had no competence and jurisdiction to decide the application filed by the petitioner herein for Stage Carriage Permit (Annexure P-1), rather such prayer was required to be considered and decided by the State Transport Authority, as provided under Section 68 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, (hereinafter, ‘the Act’).

2. While making this Court peruse provisions contained under Section 68 and Section 80 of the Act, petitioner in person vehemently argued that once it is not in dispute that State Transport Authority stands constituted and there is no time limit fixed for making an application for permit of any kind, there was no occasion, if any, for Secretary, State Transport Authority to reject the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of Stage Carriage Permit. While making this Court peruse reply filed by respondents No.1 & 2, petitioner in person further argued that there is no denial, if any, on the part of the respondents with regard to constitution of State Transport Authority, rather, attempt has been made to defeat the claim of the petitioner on the ground that application for Stage Carriage Permit was filed without there being advertisement issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh, which otherwise was not required. He further submitted that though it has been claimed on behalf of the respondents that on account of agreement entered inter se State of Himachal Pradesh and State of Uttarakhand, no new route shall be granted to a private Stage carriage operator in the interstate route or in the corridor routes, but such decision, if any, could only be taken by the State Transport Authority, but definitely not by the Secretary, State Transport Authority.

3. While refuting the aforesaid submission made on behalf of petitioner in person, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General while making this Court peruse reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2, beside making submission with regard to non- issuance of advertisement as well as agreement inter se State of Uttarakhand and State of Himachal Pradesh, further argued that since no route ever came to be notified by the State of Himachal Pradesh in terms of Section 68 (3)(c)(ca) of the Act, there was otherwise no occasion, if any, for State Transport Authority to consider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of Stage Carriage Permit.

4. Having heard learned Additional Advocate General and petitioner in person and perused material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order dated 27.06.2024 passed by Secretary, State Transport Authority (Annexure P-5), this Court finds merit in the submission of petitioner in person that prayer, if any, made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of Stage Carriage Permit could not have been considered and decided by Secretary, State Transport Authority, rather such prayer, if any, could only be considered and decided by the State Transport Authority, constituted in terms of Section 68 of the Act. Since there is no dispute inter se parties that Section 68 of the Act provides for constitution of State Transport Authority, which has been further empowered under Section 80 of the Act to consider prayer, if any, made for Stage Carriage Permit, there appears to be no reason for this Court to reproduce aforesaid provision of law.

5. It is also not in d