Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J. M. L. Sinha and S. J. Hyder, JJ.
TULSI RAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petn 1733 Of 1980
Decided On : 02/12/1982
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - Section 43-A - Amendment Act of 1972 - Notification dated March 30, 1972 - Liberal policy for grant of permits - Subsequent amendment of Section 43-A - Notification dated September 24, 1975 - Rescission of earlier notification - U.P. Act No. XV of 1976 - Amendment of Section 43-A - Directions to Transport Authorities regarding grant of permits - U.P. Act No. XXVII of 1976 - Plying of private buses on corridors - Competent Authority - Permit holders - Validity of permits granted by STAT - Jurisdiction of STAT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the validity of the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) dated March 9, 1973, which allowed the appeals of 32 applicants against the order of the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) dated April 6/7, 1966, and directed the RTA to issue regular stage carriage permits to each of the appellants. The petitioners contended that the order of the STAT was invalid as it was based on the liberal policy enunciated in the notification dated March 30, 1972, which had been stayed by the High Court. They also contended that portions of the route were nationalized under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and therefore, permits could not have been granted to the contesting respondents in pursuance of the provisions contained in Section 43-A of the Act read with the notification of the State Government dated March 30, 1972.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the order of the STAT dated March 9, 1973, was invalid as it was based on the liberal policy enunciated in the notification dated March 30, 1972, which had been stayed by the High Court. The Court also held that the STAT was wholly incompetent to grant the permits in favor of the contesting respondents since the portions of the route from Muzaffarnagar to Saharanpur via Bhaman Heri Gagal Heri overlap the nationalized routes. The Court further held that the contesting respondents could not avail of the benefit of U.P. Act No. XXVII of 1976 as they were not holders of valid permits.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of the STAT dated March 9, 1973, was invalid as it was based on the liberal policy enunciated in the notification dated March 30, 1972, which had been stayed by the High Court? 2. Whether the STAT was wholly incompetent to grant the permits in favor of the contesting respondents since the portions of the route from Muzaffarnagar to Saharanpur via Bhaman Heri Gagal Heri overlap the nationalized routes? 3. Whether the contesting respondents could avail of the benefit of U.P. Act No. XXVII of 1976 as they were not holders of valid permits?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The order of the STAT dated March 9, 1973, was invalid as it was based on the liberal policy enunciated in the notification dated March 30, 1972, which had been stayed by the High Court. The stay order issued by the High Court was binding on the STAT, and the STAT could not proceed with the appeals in contravention of the stay order. 2. The STAT was wholly incompetent to grant the permits in favor of the contesting respondents since the portions of the route from Muzaffarnagar to Saharanpur via Bhaman Heri Gagal Heri overlap the nationalized routes. The scheme framed under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, prohibited the grant of permits to private operators on nationalized routes. 3. The contesting respondents could not avail of the benefit of U.P. Act No. XXVII of 1976 as they were not holders of valid permits. The permits granted to the contesting respondents by the STAT were invalid, and therefore, they could not be considered as permit holders within the meaning of U.P. Act No. XXVII of 1976.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petitions Nos. 1647 of 1973 and 3068 of 1973 and quashed the order of the STAT dated March 9, 1973. The Court dismissed the writ petitions Nos. 747, 1214, and 1733 of 1980.
( 1 ) THE business of operating public service vehicles is a trade regulated under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The process of regulation of the trade and the hierarchy of the Tribunal constituted to give effect to the regulatory provisions of the Act is in itself a fruitful source of litigation between persons competing to enter or to expand their trade. A further complication has been introduced by the policy of nationalising some routes. Another factor which has contributed to increased litigation is that the State Government has looked at the problem of public interest from different standpoints from time to time. All these elements have combined together and are reflected in the present bunch of five writ petitions which we are called upon to decide. Since the question of factual involvement in all these cases are common and the dispute in the writ petition relates to the same route we propose to decide these writ petitions by a common judgment.
( 2 ) THERE is a route known as Saha-ranpur to Muzaffarnagar via Baman Heri, Deoband, Nagal, and Gagal Heri. This whole of the said route formerly lay within the jurisdiction of the Regional transport Authority, Meerut and had the sanctioned strength of 25 buses. On June 13, 1959 nine vacancies on the said route existed which were notified by the Regional Transport Authority on june 26, 1959. In response to the said notification 1096 applications were made by different persons. All these applications were published for objection on February 1, 1960, On May 12, 1961 the Regional Transport Authority, decided to raise the strength of the route from 25 to 32. Sometime in Sept. 1961 a new region with its headquarters at Dehra Dun was created and thereafter the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut transferred all the applications which had been received by it for the vacancies on the route to the Regional Transport Authority, Dehra dun since the major portion of the route lay within the jurisdiction of the newly created region. In this judgment the expression Regional Transport Authority, Dehra Dun shall be hereinafter referred to as the RTA.
( 3 ) IN its meeting held on Feb. 19 and 20 the RTA decided not to notify any further applications for the existing vacancies on the route. In its meeting held on April 6 and 7, 1966 the RTA granted permits to 10 applicants, Against the decision of the R. T. A. 32 applicants who had failed to obtain permits filed appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as STAT. During the pendency of the said appeals some additional vacancies came into existence and they were notified on June 29, 1967. In response to the said notification a number of persons applied for the grant of permits including Cherkesh Kumar Jain petitioner No. 3 in writ petition No. 1647 of 1973. The application of Cherkesh Kumar Jain was rejected and he filed an appeal before the STAT. The said appeal was allowed by order dated Feb. 2, 1972 and the case was remanded for a fresh decision to the RTA.
( 4 ) IN the meanwhile in Aug. 1971, 20 additional vacancies were created on the route and the rta decided to fill 10 of the said vacancies in the year 1971 and the remaining in the year 1972. The vacancies for the year 1971 were notified on Nov. 6, 1971. In pursuance of that notification suresh Chand Tyagi petitioner No. 2 in writ petition No. 1647 of 1973 and Cherkesh Kumar jain, petitioner aforesaid made separate applications for the grant of permit to each one of them. The ten vacancies reserved for the year 1972 were also advertised and Cherkesh Kumar Jain made a third application for grant of stage carriage permit to him on the route. It may be stated that the STAT by its order dated 11-2-1971 had directed that all the applications for the vacancies earmarked for the years 1971 and 1972 should be considered together.
( 5 ) AT this stage the Governor of Uttar Pra. issued Ordn. No. IX of 1
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
