Suo motu applications for stage carriage route permits impermissible without prior route notification and publication; authorities must strictly adhere to procedural rules and binding precedents to prevent arbitrary grants.

Judgment :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

As common issues of facts and law are involved in all these writ petitions and as common arguments were addressed by the petitioner and learned Advocate General in all these petitions, they are being disposed of vide common judgment.

2. The reliefs prayed for in all these three writ petitions are as under:

In CWP No.5853 of 2021, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“i. That impugned order dated 22.9.2020 passed by the respondent, conveyed through Secretary- State Transport Authority, Himachal Pradesh may be quashed/set aside;

2) That respondent be directed to strictly adhere to the provisions of law namely Ss. 80, read with 70, 71, 72,88 duly settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Mithilesh Garg, Pancham Chand considering it as binding under Article 141 and 144 of Constitution of India while dealing with the matter of grant of stage carriage permits;

3) That, respondent also be directed to follow the judgment of Shri Anil Kumar & Others Vs. State of H.P & others rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench in CWP No. 11495/2011-J, CWP No 3592 of 2011, titled as M/s Sood Bus Service & others Versus State of H.P & Others and CWP No 9367 of 2011-G on dated 13.1.12 in letter and spirit while granting stage carriage permits which it violated patently;

4) That respondent be directed to abide by Anil Kumar judgement as per opinion given by the Law Department through Secretary (Law), Govt of Himachal qua opinion no. N-18, dated 4-7-12 on the judgment to adhere the law in letter and spirit while granting permits;

5) not to interpret Ajay Parihar's judgment as deterrent on exercise of its statutory functions conferred on it by section 80, 71, 72 of the Act while dealing with applications of petitioner but to follow the spirit and directions issued to it to grant the route permits strictly in accordance with law;

6) That respondent be directed to immediately grant the permits to the petitioner u/s 80 read with 70, 71, 72, 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 along with submitted timetable, grant of countersignatures by adopting similar provisions/ procedures/ arrangements adopted for HRTC enabling it to ply the bus service qua the routes. Services of advance notices on the Respondents may be dispensed with.”

In CWP 9146 of 2024, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“1. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, ORDER, OR DIRECTION declaring the order dated 17.9.14 [ANNEXURE P3] passed by the Chairman STA without jurisdiction in violation of Rule 122 is "nonest", "void ab- initio", "inoperative" "illegal" and 'ultra vires' rules 57 and 60 of HP Motor Vehicles Rules 1999 and also violative of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of "Chandrabhai K Bhoir & Ors. V/s Krishan Arjun Bhoir & Ors", and quash it accordingly.

2. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order, or directions commanding respondent no. 1 to comply with the order [P1] in true letter and spirit in time bound manner "considering" the applications dated 17.9.14 filed complying with order 15.7.14 [P1].

3. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order, or directions commanding respondent no. 1 to "grant" the permits along with the proposed timetable, in a time-bound manner by exclusively following the "prescribed procedures" contemplated under section 72(1) read with section 80(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and Rule 57,60 of the HP Motor Vehicles Rules 1999 as per law settled in " Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India " 19