Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. A. SHARMA, D. K. SETH
MUNNI DEVI - Appellant
Versus
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 40004 Of 1994
Decided On : 03/13/1995
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT - FIXATION OF LIMIT - MODEL CONDITION - R. T. A. CANNOT FIX LIMIT FOR GRANT OF PERMIT - S. T. A. CAN FIX MODEL CONDITION - R. T. A. TO GRANT PERMITS TO BETTER MODELS - INTEREST OF TRAVELLING PUBLIC.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the model condition of ten years fixed by the Regional Transport Authority (R.T.A.) for grant of stage carriage permits on a particular route. They argued that the State Transport Authority (S.T.A.) had fixed a model condition of twenty years and had issued directions to the R.T.A. accordingly, but the R.T.A. had disregarded those directions. They also contended that the R.T.A. could not fix limits for grant of permits under the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that under the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the R.T.A. could not fix limits for grant of stage carriage permits, except in respect of city routes in towns with a population of not less than five lacs. The court also held that the R.T.A. could not grant permits on the basis of "first come first serve" principle, but had to apply its mind to each applicant and grant permits to the suitable persons.
Issues: 1. Whether the R.T.A. could fix limits for grant of stage carriage permits under the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? 2. Whether the R.T.A. could grant permits on the basis of "first come first serve" principle? 3. Whether the R.T.A. could fix a model condition for the age of vehicles to be placed under stage carriage permits?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 443, which held that under the new Motor Vehicles Act, the authorities could not fix limits for grant of permits. 2. The court also relied on its own decision in Shamom Haider v. R.T.A., decided on the same day, in which it had held that it was not open to the R.T.A. to fix limits for grant of permits. 3. The court further held that the R.T.A. could not grant permits on the basis of "first come first serve" principle, but had to apply its mind to each applicant and grant permits to the suitable persons.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the writ petition. It quashed that part of the impugned resolution of the R.T.A. which fixed a limit of 35 permits for the route in question. The court directed the R.T.A. to consider the request of the petitioners for issue of permits in accordance with law within a month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the judgment.
( 1 ) REGIONAL Transport Authority, Meerut (herein after referred to as the R. T. A.), vide its resolution dated 26-9-1994, fixed the limit of 35 for grant of stage carriage permits on Mawana- Phalawade-Khatauli- Nawala -Mansoorpur Gao-Mansoorpur- Munnaurpur- Sindhawali- Kookara- Muzaffarnagar route (hereinafter referred as the route) and granted permits to all the applicants with the condition that only 35 permits will be issued to the grantees on the basis of "first come first serve". By the same resolution another condition of placing not more than ten years old vehicle under the permit was also imposed. Petitioners, who applied for and were granted permits by the R. T. A. by the aforesaid resolution, being aggrieved by the above condition, have filed this writ petition.
( 2 ) ON 14-12-1994 this Court while granting to the learned standing counsel for filing counter-affidavit, passed the following order in this writ petition:"by this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the model condition of ten years fixed by the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut. Their grievance is that although the State Transport Authority has fixed model condition of twenty years and has issued direction to the Regional Transport Authority in this connection, but the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, in disregard to that direction has fixed model condition of ten years. The further grievance is that the Regional Transport Authority under new Motor Vehicles Act cannot fix limits of permits on the route. Similar controversy was raised in writ petition No. 33672 of 1994, Sukhbir Singh v. Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, in which this court granted one months time to the learned Standing counsel to file counter-affidavit. But no counter-affidavit has been filed so far. Provisions of new Motor Vehicle Act do not authorise the Regional Transport Authority to fix any limit of permit on the route. This controversy has been settled in the case of Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 443: (1991 All LJ 1167 ). Learned Standing counsel prays for and is granted one weeks time more for seeking instructions and for filing counter-affidavit. List this writ petition on 21-12-1994, along with writ petition No. 33672 of 1994, on which date this petition may be disposed of finally. "however, no counter-affidavit was filed on 10-1-1995 this court granted two weeks and no more time to file counter-affidavit. In spite of stop order no counter-affidavit has been filed. It may also be observed that earlier another writ petition No. 33672 of 1994 was filed challenging the same order of R. T. A. in which this court, while granting time to the learned Standing counsel passed interim mandamus directing R. T. A. to issue permit to the petitioner therein ignoring ten-years model condition within four weeks or to show-cause by filing counter-affidavit within the same period provided the vehicle which may be placed by him is not more than twenty years old. Even then no counter-affidavit was filed.
( 3 ) SUB-SECTION (3) of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act) provided for fixation of the limits before grant of stage carriage permit. However, in Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (herein after referred to as the new Act), whereby old Act has been repealed, there is no such provision providing for fixation of limits for grant of stage carriage permit, except in respect of city routes in towns with a population of not less than five lacs. Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg. v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 443: (1991 All. LJ 1167) has, in this connection, also laid down that under the new Act the authorities cannot fix limit for grant of permit. In Writ Petition No. 36761 of 1994, Shamom Haider v. R. T. A. decided today, we have held that it is not open to the R. T. A. to fix limits for grant of permits. We have also held that R. T. A. cannot grant permits on the basis of "first come first serve" principle. It
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
