Back
High Court Of Orissa
G. B. Pattanaik , D. M. PATNAIK
JUBLA KUMAR JOTHI - Appellant
Versus
STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - Respondent
O. J. C. 2725 Of 1994
Decided On : 05/10/1994
TEMPORARY PERMIT - GRANT - PROCEDURE - CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS - PROPRIETY - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - WRIT JURISDICTION: 1. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993, it is not a requirement of law that all applications for grant of temporary permits on a specified route are to be disposed of together. Applications for temporary permits are made not in pursuance of any advertisement issued by the authority but by each of the applicants on the existence of any particular need as contained in different clauses of sub-section (1) of Section 87 of the Act. Since applications are not required to be made within a specified date and are made at different points of time and under law applications are required to be disposed of within 4 days from the date of the application if such application is covered by clauses (a) and (b) and within 15 days, if the application is covered by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 87, it is difficult to hold that all such applications for grant of temporary permits on a specified route are required under law to be disposed of together. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, propriety demanded consideration of the applications of the petitioners along with the applications of opposite parties 3 and 4 and all others whose cases were directed to be considered by this Court in OJC. Nos. 146 and 286 of 1994. When the petitioner approached this Court in OJC No. 2471 /94, apprehending that there will be no consideration of their applications if other persons are granted temporary permits in the route this Court disposed of with the observation that there is no justification for such apprehension. But the subsequent orders passed by the Chairman, S. T. A. rejecting the petitioners' applications on the sole ground that temporary permits have been granted in favour of opposite parties 3 and 4 and there does not exist any further need for grant of temporary permit establishes that the apprehension of the petitioners was real and justified. In our considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case propriety demanded that the petitioners' applications for grant of temporary permits should have been considered along with others and piecemeal consideration of the applications and grant in favour of opposite parties 3 and 4 and rejection of the petitioners' applications there after vitiates the order in question. 3. The existence of alternative remedy by way of revision to the State Transport Tribunal would not debar this Court from entertaining the writ applications and deciding the same particularly taking into account the course of events as narrated in this judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners applied for grant of temporary permits on specified inter-State routes. The permit granting authority considered the applications of some other applicants and granted temporary permits to them without considering the petitioners' applications. The petitioners approached the High Court challenging the grant of temporary permits to the other applicants and the rejection of their own applications.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that: (i) Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993, it is not a requirement of law that all applications for grant of temporary permits on a specified route are to be disposed of together. (ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, propriety demanded consideration of the applications of the petitioners along with the applications of the other applicants. (iii) The existence of alternative remedy by way of revision to the State Transport Tribunal would not debar the High Court from entertaining the writ applications and deciding the same.
Issues: 1. Whether all applications for grant of temporary permits on a specified route are required under law to be disposed of together? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, propriety demanded consideration of all applications together? 3. Whether the directions given by the High Court in OJC Nos. 146 and 286 of 1994 debar the permit granting authority from considering the petitioners' applications along with applications of opposite parties 3 and 4 and others whose cases were directed to be considered together by the High Court? 4. Whether availability of an alternative remedy by way of revision would stand as a bar in entertaining the writ application and issuing appropriate directions.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The requirement of law that all applications for grant of temporary permits on a specified route are to be disposed of together depends upon an analysis of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules made thereunder. Section 87 of the Act deals with the question of grant of temporary permits and Section 80 is the procedure in applying for and granting permits. Under Section 80 of the Act an application for a permit of any kind may be made at any time. Under Section 87 of the Act, which is the specific provision for grant of temporary permits, the Regional Transport Authority as well as the State Transport Authority are empowered to grant permits to be effective for a limited period which in no case shall exceed four months, without following the procedure laid down under Section 80, if any of the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) are satisfied those conditions being for convenience of passengers on special occasions like fair and religious gatherings or for the purpose of a seasonal business or to meet a particular temporary need or pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit. Sub-section (7) of Section 88 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of Section 88, the Regional Transport Authority of one region may issue a temporary permit under Section 87 to be valid in another region or State with the concurrence given generally or for the particular occasion of the Regional Transport Authority of that other State as the case may be. Applications for grant of temporary permit on an inter-State route are therefore required to be. made and disposed of in accordance with Section 87 read with sub-section (7) of Section 88. Under the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993 framed in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 28, 65, 96, 111 and 138 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the procedure for making an application and the manner in which those applications are to be dealt with have been indicated in Rule 87. Sub-section (6) of Rule 84 of the aforesaid Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules provides that an application for temporary permit under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 87 shall if it is received complete in all respect be disposed of as far as possible within four days from the presentation and in cases falling under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 87, necessary steps for initiating preliminary proceeding shall be taken within 5 days of the receipt of the application and shall be dispose of within 15 days thereafter. A combined reading of the provisions contained in Section 87 of the Act and sub-rule (6) of Rule 84 of the Rules make if clear that it is not a requirement of law that all applications for grant of temporary permits are to be disposed of together in respect of a specified route. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, propriety demanded consideration of the applications of the petitioners along with the applications of the other applicants. The petitioners had filed their applications for grant of temporary permits before the permit granting authority. The authority had issued notices to the petitioners to appear before it on a specified date for consideration of their applications. However, on that date, the authority considered the applications of some other applicants and granted temporary permits to them without considering the petitioners' applications. The petitioners were informed that their applications would be considered on a later date. The authority subsequently rejected the petitioners' applications on the ground that there was no further need for grant of temporary permits. The High Court held that the authority should have considered the petitioners' applications along with the applications of the other applicants and that the rejection of the petitioners' applications without considering them along with the other applications was improper.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed the orders granting temporary permits to the other applicants and directed the permit granting authority to reconsider the applications of the petitioners along with the applications of the other applicants.
G. B. PATNAIK, J.
( 1 ) THE question of law involved in both these writ applications being common they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. An interesting question of law arises with regard to the procedure for hearing applications for grant of temporary permits on a specified route, namely, whether all the applications made for grant of temporary permits in a route are required to be considered together and the permit granting authority commits any error in not disposing them of together and secondly, whether in the present two cases, on the facts and circumstances, propriety demanded consideration of all the applications, for grant of temporary permits together.
( 2 ) THE petitioner in OJC No. 2726/ 94 was an applicant for grant of a temporary permit on an inter-State route Narasinghpur to Calcutta and he filed his application for grant of such permit before the S. T. A. , Orissa on 3012-93. Though an application for grant of temporary permit is required to be disposed of within 4 days under law, no action was taken on the petitioner's application and whenever he approached the authority he was told that he will be intimated the date on which his application will be considered. The petitioner received a notice on 4-3-94 signed by the under Secretary. S. T. A. , Orissa whereunder he was directed to appear before the Chairman, S. T. A. , opposite party No. 2 on 15-3-94 at I1 a. m. for consideration of his application for temporary permit on the aforesaid inter-State route. The petitioner appeared before the Chairman, S. T. A. on 15-3-1994 through his Advocate but his application was not taken up for hearing and on the other hand, opposite party No. 2 took up the applications of some other applicants for consideration regarding the grant of temporary permit on the self-same inter-State route. The petitioner was informed on 15-3-1994 that his application for grant of temporary permit on the inter-State route Narasinghpur to Calcutta would be taken up on 2-4-1994, as there was no time to hear all the applications on that date. The petitioner was then served with a registered notice dated 18-3-1994 whereunder he was informed that the hearing of his application has been adjourned to 2-4-1994 at 11 a. m. before the Chairman, S. T. A. and this notice was received by the petitioner on 23-3-1994. The petitioner, however, learnt that the Chairman, S. T. A. has decided to grant temporary permit in favour of opposite parties 3 and 4 for the aforesaid inter-State route on 15-3-1994 and, therefore, the petitioner approached this Court in O. J. C. No. 2471 / 94. That writ application was disposed of by this court at the admission stage whereunder this Court observed that there was no justification for the petitioner to apprehend that his application for permit would not be considered. The said order was passed after hearing the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the department. The petitioner, however, came to know that the permit granting authority has already granted permit in favour of opposite parties 3 and 4 on the aforesaid interstate route. In the meantime the hearing that was fixed to 2-4-1994 stood adjourned to 12-4-1994 and since the permit granting authority had granted two temporary permits in favour of opposite parties 3 and 4, the petitioner thought that the hearing of his application on 12-4-1994 is a futile exercise. He, therefore, filed the present writ application on 8-4-1994. The petitioner avers in the writ application that under law, all applications pending at a given point of time for grant of permits are required to be considered together and in the context non-consideration of the petitioner's application on 15-3-1994 and granting permits to opposite parties 3 and 4 on that date vitiates the decision particularly when the petitioner was served with a notice by the permit granting authority to appear before him on 15-3-1994 at 11 a. m.
( 3 ) 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
