Plying a transport vehicle off the route, even without passengers, violates permit conditions under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and is punishable under the Act. Equity cannot override clear and express statutory provisions.

Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - PERMITS - CONDITIONS - PLYING VEHICLE OFF ROUTE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 66 - APPLICABILITY OF EXCEPTIONS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - ENFORCEMENT OF STATUTORY DUTY - EQUITY - INTERIM ORDERS - ABUSE OF PROCESS - CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE - COSTS.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, holders of permanent stage carriage permits, sought to restrain authorities from interfering with their vehicles when taken off the route for diesel and repairs. They argued that plying vehicles off the route without passengers did not violate permit conditions.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, prohibits the use of transport vehicles off the route unless falling within specified exceptions. Plying a vehicle off the route, even without passengers, violates the permit conditions and is punishable under the Act. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the statutory provisions and the need for strict adherence to permit conditions.
Issues: 1. Whether plying a transport vehicle off the route without passengers violates permit conditions under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? 2. Whether equity can override clear and express statutory provisions? 3. Whether interim orders should be contradictory in similar cases? 4. Whether courts can grant relief in contravention of statutory provisions? 5. Whether petitioners can seek variation/extension of route through indirect means?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, prohibits the use of transport vehicles off the route unless falling within specified exceptions. Plying a vehicle off the route, even without passengers, violates the permit conditions and is punishable under the Act. 2. Equity cannot override clear and express statutory provisions. Courts must give effect to legislative intent and cannot grant relief in contravention of statutory provisions. 3. Interim orders should not be contradictory in similar cases. Consistency, uniformity, and predictability in judicial approach are essential to avoid discriminatory treatment. 4. Courts cannot grant relief in contravention of statutory provisions. Petitioners cannot seek variation/extension of route through indirect means, bypassing the prescribed procedure under Section 80(3) of the Act.
Final Decision: All writ petitions were dismissed with costs. The Court directed the Regional Transport Officer to check the petitioners' vehicles regularly, issue show cause notices for permit cancellation or suspension, and punish them under the Act. The Court also directed the Deputy Superintendents of Police to seize the petitioners' vehicles found off the permitted route.

B. S. CHAUHAN, J.

( 1 ) BY this common judgment we dispose of all the above mentioned writ petitions. The facts involved in the instant petitions are eye openers and reveal as to what extent the process of Court is abused by litigants to distort the law. This is a unique example where the relief has been sought in contravention of the statutory provisions. On behalf of the petitioners submissions have been made only on the basis of a loophole in the statutory provisions without realising that the Parliament had plugged the said loophole more than two and a half decades ago.

( 2 ) IN writ petition No. 14924 of 1996 petitioner is holding permanent stage carriage permit No. 45 1/rta/96 on Allahabad-Kunda route and plying vehicle No. UGH 673, in Writ Petition No. 14925 of 1996 petitioner is holding permanent stage carriage permit No. 1447/rta/96 on Pratapgarh-Kunda route and plying vehicle No. UGH 786, in writ petition No. 15232 of 1996 petitioner is holding permanent stage carriage permit No. 1450/rta/96 on Allahabad-Kunda route and plying vehicle No. UP 42/a-6782 and in writ petition No. 15235 of 1996 petitioner is holding permanent stage carriage permit No. 1446/ RTA/96 on Pratapgarh-Kunda route and plying vehicle No. UGV 322.

( 3 ) THE facts of all the writ petitions are identical and the writ petition No. 14924 of 1996 Smt. Rampati Jaiswal v. State of U. P. and others is taken to be a leading case for disposing of all the above mentioned writ petitions.

( 4 ) PETITIONER was granted a stage carriage permit on non-notified route known as Allahabad to Kunda, via Nawabganj, Dahiyaha, Babuganj Chauraha and petitioner is plying her vehicle on the said route. It appears that she entered into an agreement with M/s Rada Ram Singh and sons (filling station), Lalgupalganj, district Allahabad, which is 15 kms. away from Nawabganj, a town on the route of the petitioner. Thus under the pretext of taking diesel the vehicle of the petitioner goes out of the route 15 kms. up and 15 kms. down. Petitioner is plying her vehicle daily 30 kms. off the route on which she had been granted permit under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter called the Act. The route of the petitioner originates from Allahabad and ends at Kunda and there is no scarcity of diesel, service stations for washing and cleaning or garage for repairing the vehicle either at Allahabad or at Kunda. Lalgopalganj is comparatively a smaller town and does not provide sufficient facilities except having the filling station.

( 5 ) THE petitioner is seeking relief that the transport and the police authorities be restrained from checking or interfering with the plying of the vehicle when it goes off the route to Lalgopalganj. Section 66 of the Act reads 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 in place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save inaccordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used. . . . " (Emphasis added) (2) xx xx xx (3) The provision of sub-section ( 1 ) shall not apply. (a) xx xx xx (e) to any transport vehicle used for towing a disabled vehicle or for removing goods from a disabled vehicle to a place of safety; xx xx xx (p) to any transport vehicle while proceeding empty to any place for purpose of repair. "

( 6 ) SECTION 66 speaks of transport vehicle and public place etc. The aforesaid terms have been defined under Section 2 of the Act and the relevant definitions are as under : (34) "public place" means a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right to access and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage; (35

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(All) 603

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABADM. KATJU, B. S. CHAUHANRAMPATI JAISWAL - AppellantVersusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - RespondentsC. M. W. P. 14924 Of 1996Decided On : 05/16/1996

Plying a transport vehicle off the route, even without passengers, violates permit conditions under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and is punishable under the Act. Equity cannot override clear and express statutory provisions.

Cases Referred (19)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. KATJU, B. S. CHAUHAN
RAMPATI JAISWAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 14924 Of 1996
Decided On : 05/16/1996