Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. R. Singh, J.
KIRAN PAL AND KANWAR PAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, U.P., LUCKNOW - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 29562 Of 1998
Decided On : 11/02/1998
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTION 103(2)(G) - SECTION 104 - SCHEME FOR NATIONALISATION OF ROUTES - LAPSE OF SCHEME - RENEWAL OF PERMIT - APPLICABILITY OF SCHEME.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were granted a Stage Carriage Permit for the Meerut-Gangoh route in 1992. The permit was valid until November 30, 1997. The petitioners applied for renewal of the permit, but their application was rejected by the State Transport Authority (STA) and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) on the ground that part of the route had been notified as a nationalized route under a scheme published in 1993. The petitioners challenged the rejection of their application by filing a writ petition in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the scheme published in 1993 had lapsed and, therefore, the STA and STAT erred in rejecting the petitioners' application for renewal of permit. The Court also held that the petitioners were entitled to a fresh hearing of their application.
Issues: 1. Whether the scheme published in 1993 had lapsed? 2. Whether the STA and STAT erred in rejecting the petitioners' application for renewal of permit? 3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to a fresh hearing of their application?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the scheme published in 1993 had lapsed because it was not approved and published within one year from the date of commencement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as required by Section 100(4) of the Act. 2. The Court held that the STA and STAT erred in rejecting the petitioners' application for renewal of permit because the scheme published in 1993 had lapsed and, therefore, the bar created by Section 104 of the Act against grant of permits on nationalized routes did not apply. 3. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to a fresh hearing of their application because the STA and STAT had erred in rejecting their application without considering the merits of the case.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders of the STA and STAT, and directed the STA to reconsider the petitioners' application for renewal of permit afresh in accordance with law.
( 1 ) THE grievance of the petitioners in the instant petition is centred on two orders firstly the order dated 25. 5. 1998 passed by the State Transport Authority, U. P. , Lucknow rejecting their application for renewal of Stage Carriage Permit, and secondly, the revisional order dated 31. 8. 1998, by which their revision No. 33 of 1998 preferred against the order dated 25. 5. 1998 came to be dismissed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P. , Lucknow.
( 2 ) THE facts draped in brevity and shorn of unnecessary details are that the Stale Transport authority. U. P. . Lucknow (in short the S. T. A. ). released 26 Stage Carriage Permits by resolution/order dated 23. 11. 1992 including one Permit in favour of the petitioners to ply their vehicle on the route in question, namely, Meerut-Gangoh via rohta-Barnava-Daha-Budhana-Shamit-Jhinjhana-Bidault (New Yamuna Bridge)-Basech, The order dated 23. 11. 1992 was taken up in challenge by Sheetal Prasad, Gajraj Singh and Ugrasen before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P. , Lucknow (in short the s. T. A. T. ) in three separate revisions (being revision Nos. , 335 of 1992. 336 of 1992 and 1 of 1993 respectively ). Sheetal Prasad Jain was an existing Operalor on Muzaffamagar-Budhana-Kandhla-lssopurtil and allied routes. Cajraj Singh, revisionist in revision No. 336 of 1992 had been plying his vehicle on rohtah-Parnava-Baraut and allied routes, while Ugrasen was an Operator on muzaffarnagar-Shamiti-Kairana-Yamuna Bridge and allied routes. The Tribunal allowed the three revisions aforestated and set aside the resolution/order dated 23. 11. 1992 by means of the order dated 21. 6. 1993 premised on the ground that the portions of the route in question were part of notified routes, the draft scheme of which was published-under Section 68c of the Motor vehicles Act. 1939 (in short the repealed Act) on 13. 2. 86. Subsequently, the scheme came to be approved by Notification No. 1635/30-2-92-365/85, dated May 29, 1993. The petitioner and other aggrieved operators instituted a writ petition, being No. 1531/m/s/1993, at the Lucknow bench of this Court, in which following interim order which still endures was passed on 1. 7. 1993.
"until further orders, the impugned order dated 21. 6. 1993 (Annexure-8) is hereby stayed. It shall be open to move an application for modification or vacation of this interim order"
.
( 3 ) THE Permit granted in favour of petitioners was valid upto 30. 11. 1997. Therefore, an application came to be moved by them for renewal of the permit. The matter received consideration of the State Transport Authority. U. P. , Lucknow in its meeting held on 25. 5. 1998. On behalf of the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, an oral objection was mooted that part of the route had since been notified vide notification dated 29. 5. 1993 and as such, application for renewal of the permit was liable to be rejected in view of the provisions contained in Section 103 (2) (g) read with Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the new Act ). On behalf of the petitioner, it was canvassed before the S. T. A. . U. P. , Lucknow that the route in question did not form part of the notified route, that in any case, the operation of notification dated 29. 5. 1993 had been stayed by the High Court in number of writ petitions. The application for renewal of permit met the fate of rejection vide order/resolution dated 25. 5. 1998 passed by the state Transport Authority, U. P. , Lucknow which order received approbation of the State transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P. . Lucknow vide order dated 31. 8. 1998. It is these two orders which have been bracketed for challenge in the instant petition.
( 4 ) WITHOUT intruding into the continuity of facts, it may be stated that a draft scheme was earlier published under Section 86c on February 26. 1959 and approved under Section 68d of the repealed Act on September 29. 1359. But it came to be quashed as against 50 Operator
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
