Back
1970 Supreme(All) 20
Allahbad High Court
JAGMOHANLAL
General Manager, U.P. Govt. Roadways, Bareilly Region - Appellant
Versus
State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 01/30/1970
Umesh Chandra, for Petitioners; Chief Standing Counsel (for Nos. 1 and 2) and D.N. Jha (for No. 3), for Opposite Parties.
The Transport Commissioner did not have the authority under Rule 9 (1) (c) of the U. P. State Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1958, to direct the permit-holders to obtain special permission to operate on the notified route.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 68-F - SCHEME FOR EXCLUSIVE OPERATION OF NOTIFIED ROUTE BY STATE TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING - GRANT OF PERMITS ON THROUGH ROUTE OVERLAPPING NOTIFIED ROUTE - CORRIDOR RESTRICTIONS - VALIDITY - DIRECTION BY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER FOR SPECIAL PERMISSION TO OPERATE ON NOTIFIED ROUTE - COMPETENCE - U. P. STATE TRANSPORT SERVICES (DEVELOPMENT) RULES, 1958, RULE 9 (1) (C).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, the General Manager, U. P. Government Roadways, Bareilly Region, and the Transport Commissioner, U. P., challenged the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which modified the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly Region, by removing the condition that the permit-holders obtain special permission from the Transport Commissioner to ply their buses on the notified portion of the route after every four months.
Finding of the Court:
1. The direction given by the Transport Commissioner under Rule 9 (1) (c) of the U. P. State Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1958, requiring the permit-holders to obtain special permission to operate on the notified route was beyond the scope of the rule, as the rule only authorized the Transport Commissioner to specify the number of transport vehicles for which temporary permits could be granted to meet a temporary need on the notified route itself. 2. The scheme for exclusive operation of the notified route by the State Transport Undertaking did not completely exclude private operators, as it allowed certain permit-holders to operate on a through route overlapping a part of the notified route, subject to corridor restrictions. 3. The Regional Transport Authority was competent to grant permits on the through route, even if it overlapped a portion of the notified route, subject to corridor restrictions, as long as it did not modify or render the scheme ineffective. 4. The condition imposed by the Regional Transport Authority requiring the permit-holders to obtain special permission from the Transport Commissioner to operate on the notified portion of the route was not justified and was rightly set aside by the Appellate Tribunal. 5. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was maintainable as the permit-holders were aggrieved by the condition imposed by the Regional Transport Authority.
Issues: 1. Whether the Transport Commissioner had the authority under Rule 9 (1) (c) of the U. P. State Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1958, to direct the permit-holders to obtain special permission to operate on the notified route? 2. Whether the scheme for exclusive operation of the notified route by the State Transport Undertaking completely excluded private operators? 3. Whether the Regional Transport Authority could grant permits on the through route, even if it overlapped a portion of the notified route, subject to corridor restrictions? 4. Whether the condition imposed by the Regional Transport Authority requiring the permit-holders to obtain special permission from the Transport Commissioner to operate on the notified portion of the route was justified? 5. Whether the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 9 (1) (c) of the U. P. State Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1958, only authorized the Transport Commissioner to specify the number of transport vehicles for which temporary permits could be granted to meet a temporary need on the notified route itself, and did not empower him to require permit-holders to obtain special permission to operate on the notified route. 2. The scheme for exclusive operation of the notified route by the State Transport Undertaking did not completely exclude private operators, as it allowed certain permit-holders to operate on a through route overlapping a part of the notified route, subject to corridor restrictions. 3. The Regional Transport Authority was competent to grant permits on the through route, even if it overlapped a portion of the notified route, subject to corridor restrictions, as long as it did not modify or render the scheme ineffective. 4. The condition imposed by the Regional Transport Authority requiring the permit-holders to obtain special permission from the Transport Commissioner to operate on the notified portion of the route was not justified and was rightly set aside by the Appellate Tribunal. 5. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was maintainable as the permit-holders were aggrieved by the condition imposed by the Regional Transport Authority.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed with costs to the contesting opposite party.
2. The petitioners in each of these writ petitions are the General Manager, U. P. Government Roadways, Bareilly Region and the Transport Commissioner, U. P. Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 in each of the writ petitions are the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly Region. Opposite Party No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 110 is Daulat Ram, in Writ Petition No. 111 is Ramesh Chand Gupta who is successor-in-interest of one Ram Sanehi Lal and in Writ Petition No. 112 is Smt. Bimla Devi and Manzoor Ahmad who succeeded to the interest of one Abdul Wahid. It appears that originally Ram Sanehi Lal and Abdul Wahid were operators of stage carriages on Bareilly-Shishgarh route and each of them held a permit for a stage carriage. Daulat Ram was an operator on Moradabad-Kanth route and also held a stage carriage permit. The route Bareilly-Shishgarh was notified under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) on 15-7-1961, while the other route Moradabad-Kanth was notified on March 25, 1963.
After these notifications the permits of these permit-holders were cancelled under Section 68-F of the Act. In lieu of compensation for the cancellation of these permits, these displaced operators were however given permits on a route known as Budaun-Sahawan-Babrala route under the provisions of Section 68-G. It may be stated at this place that according to the petitioners a portion of this route from Budaun to Sahawan was also a notified route. The permits on this route which were originally granted by the Regional Transport Authority Bareilly to these three persons, namely. Daulat Ram, Ram Sanehi Lal and Abdul Wahid, in April, 1963, did not, however, contain any restriction so as to prohibit them from picking up or setting down the passengers between Badaun and Sahawan.
Later on, when the Transport Commissioner detected this irregularity he wrote a letter through his Assistant Transport Commissioner to the Regional Transport Officer Bareilly as Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority pointing out this irregularity committed in granting these permits and directing him that at the time or next renewal these permits should be renewed only for the non-notified portion of the route but the permit-holders may be allowed to ply one up and one down trip daily with corridor restrictions and that such permission should be given in four monthly periods. A copy of this letter is Annexure 3 to each of these writ petitions.
3. The permit-holders applied for renewal of their permits in 1966. Their applications were duly published in the Gazette and they were considered by the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting held on 27th May, 1966. The Regional Transport Authority renewed their permits only for the non-notified portion of the route i.e.,
Sahsawan to Babrala with a further condition that these permit-holders would be allowed to operate on the notified portion also on a temporary basis with the permission of the Transport Commissioner to be granted in four monthly periods subject to corridor restrictions, which meant that they will not pick-up or set down any passenger from or on any point on this route. A copy of this resolution of the Regional Transport Authority is contained in Annexure 4. The permit-holders were not satisfied with this order of the transport authority placing this restriction in their permits. They therefore filed appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal under Section 64 of the Act.
4. The Appellate Tribunal under the impugned order dated 9-9-1968 (Annexure 6) while maintaining the order of the Regional Transport Authority that the permits issued to the appellants in respect of the Badaun-Babrala route shall be subject to corridor restrictions on the notified portion of the route i.e., from Badaun t
