Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R. N. Misra And K. B. Panda, JJ.
DAYALAL N. JOSHI - Appellant
Versus
STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - Respondent
O. J. C. 99 Of 1971
Decided On : JULY 20, 1972
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 45 - JURISDICTION OF STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - GRANT OF PERMIT FOR A ROUTE LYING IN TWO OR MORE REGIONS - POWER OF STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY TO ASSUME JURISDICTION - RULE 52-A OF ORISSA MOTOR VEHICLES RULES - ULTRA VIRES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a stage carriage operator, challenged the grant of a permit for a second bus on a route by the State Transport Authority (STA), contending that the STA lacked jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The petitioner had been operating a single bus on the route since 1960, and in 1969, the STA had granted him a permit for a second bus, subject to the condition that the permit would be valid until the STA issued a permit for a second bus. The STA subsequently invited applications for the second permit, and the petitioner, along with six others, applied. The STA granted the permit to the opposite party No. 3, and the petitioner's appeal against this decision was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the STA lacked jurisdiction to grant the permit because the route in question lay in two separate districts, and thus fell under the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) under Section 45(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court further held that Rule 52-A of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, which purported to allow the STA to dispose of matters relating to more than one region, was ultra vires the statute.
Issues: 1. Whether the STA had jurisdiction to grant the permit for a route lying in two or more regions. 2. Whether Rule 52-A of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules was ultra vires the statute.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act and held that the application for a permit for a route lying in two or more regions within the same state must be made to the RTA of the region in which the major portion of the proposed route lies. The court further held that Section 44(3)(b) of the Act, which empowers the STA to perform the duties of a RTA where there is no such authority or if it thinks fit, did not apply in this case because the STA had not made a prior decision to assume jurisdiction over the route in question. 2. The court held that Rule 52-A of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules was ultra vires the statute because it was not in accord with the provisions of Section 45 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the grant of the permit by the STA, and set aside the decision in appeal upholding the grant.
R. N. MISRA, J.
( 1 ) THE petitioner and opposite party No. 3 are stage carriage operators. The petitioner has been operating a stage carriage on the route Bargarh to Rampur with extension to Pinka. This permit was granted by the Regional Transport authority of Sambalpur in 1960 and was duly, countersigned by the Transport authority of Bolangir. In 1967, the State Transport Service came to operate a second bus on this route, but sometime after withdrew the service. As there was need for a second bus to cater to the travelling public on this route and no other operator was forthcoming, the petitioner was allowed to operate a second bus on this route from August 1969. The Regional Transport Authority while granting the permit imposed a condition that the permit would be alive until the State transport Authority issues a permit for a second bus. The State Transport authority opposite party No. 1 in due course invited applications (from intending pliers for this route. The petitioner, opposite party No. 3 and six others applied and on 28th of October 1970, the State Transport Authority granted the permit for a second bus on this route in favour of opposite party No. 3. The petitioner carried an appeal and lost. This writ petition is directed against the said appellate order and we are asked to quash the grant of the permit and the appellate order upholding such grant.
( 2 ) THE petitioner's contention is that the State Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to grant the permit on the route and as such the grant is liable SB be quashed.
( 3 ) ON the other hand, the opposite party No. 3 contends that the State Transport authority has jurisdiction. A preliminary objection to the entertainment of the writ petition is raised on the ground that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the State Transport Authority to deal with the matter. It is stated that in August 1969, when the petitioner was permitted to ply a second bus on this route, its life was extended till the State Transport Authority filled up the vacancy for the second permit. When applications were invited by the State transport Authority, the petitioner had also applied for the grant of the permit for the second bus. He submitted to the jurisdiction of the State Transport Authority, applied for a permit and having lost has now come up to question the jurisdiction of that authority to deal with the route. As such the writ petition should be thrown out in limine.
( 4 ) NORMALLY we should have considered the question of maintainability first. But we think it appropriate to defer consideration of the preliminary point because it has first to be ascertained as to whether there is force in the contention of the petitioner that the State Transport Authority had any statutory jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Upon a finding as to whether exercise of jurisdiction is vitiated totally for want of it, or there has been an irregular exercise of jurisdiction, the fate of the preliminary point would depend.
( 5 ) SECTION 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act is relevant for the purpose. For convenience, Sub-sections (1) and (2) thereof which are material are extracted:
" (1) Every application for a permit shall be made to the Regional transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles, provided that if it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles in two or more regions lying within the same State, the application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies, and in case the portion of the proposed route or area in each of the regions is approximately equal to the regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles; provided further that if it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles in two or more regions lying in different States, application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
