( 1 ) WE have heard Sri Aroop Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

( 2 ) IN the instant writ petition the petitioners claim that it is a recognized educational institution and as such the provision for permit under Section 66 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the act) is not applicable in the case of the petitioners. Section 66 (3) (h) of the Act specifically mentions7 the category of the transport vehicle for which permit shall not be required. Section 66 (1) and 66 (3) (h) of the Act provides as under :66. Necessity for permits- (1), No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorizing him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used:provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorize the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage :provided further that a stage carriage permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorize the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage either when carrying passengers or not :provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorize the holder of use of vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him. (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply- (h) to any transport vehicle owned by, and used solely for the purposes of, any educational institution which is recognised by the Central or State Government or whose managing committee is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or under any law corresponding to that Act in force in any part of India. "

( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and the petitioner is a recognized educational institution and it has produced the relevant documents showing the affiliation under the I. C. S. E. Board. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that the respondent No. 2 was not justified in insisting on permit under Section 66 (1) of the Act from the writ petitioners.

( 4 ) THE writ petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 9-1-2001 passed by respondent No. 2 accordingly stands quashed. Petition allowed.

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document