Back
2023 Supreme(All) 2262
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, JJ.
Manoj Kumar Singh and 4 ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and 2 ors. - Respondents
WRIT A NO. 9214 OF 2023.
Decided On : 24-05-2023
For the Petitioner: Greesh Kumar Malviya, Yash Malviya
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 72(2)(xxii) - U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 - The petitioners challenged the amendment of their time tables, asserting that it was done without proper notice as required by law - The amended time tables issued by RTA curtailed previously granted trips, which could only occur following due process. (Paras 2, 8, 9, 10)
(B) Natural Justice - The court emphasized that appropriate notice and opportunity to be heard must be given to operators before altering permit conditions. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, owners of various vehicles, had their routes and daily trip schedules altered by the RTA without prior notice, prompting them to seek restoration of their original time tables.
Findings of Court:
The court deemed the Regional Transport Authority competent to address the grievances and directed them to consider the petitioners' representations as per legal requirements.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of the RTA’s procedure in amending time tables and the necessity of prior notice to the permit holders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the RTA’s actions were unjustified and mandated consideration of the petitioners’ applications in accordance with the MV Act and MV Rules, underlining the importance of procedural fairness.
Result: Writ petition stands disposed of with directions to the RTA.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners' vehicle permits and trip details. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. legal grounds for challenging timetable changes. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's authority and procedural expectation. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. writ petition determined and disposed. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT
Heard Shri G.K. Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Sharad Chandra Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.
2. Present writ petition has been preferred for a direction to respondent no.2 to decide the applications of the petitioners and to restore the old time table granted to the petitioners.
3. It appears from the record that petitioner no.1 is registered owner of Vehicle No.UP-92-T-7862 duly insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. He has been granted permit by Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Jhansi on the route known as Orai to Konch Via Hardoi Gujar, valid from 10.12.2021 to 9.12.2026. The total length of route of petitioner no.1 is 28 Kms and he has been granted time table dated 10.12.2021 by the RTA, Jhansi to ply his vehicles on the aforesaid route 03 trips per day.
4. The petitioner no.2 is registered owner of Vehicle No.UP-93-E6140 duly insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. He has been granted permit by Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Jhansi on the route known as Orai to Konch Via Hardoi Gujar, valid from 24.1.2022 to 23.1.2027. The total length of route of petitioner no.2 is 28 Kms and he has been granted time table dated 25.1.2022 by the RTA, Jhansi to ply his vehicles on the aforesaid route 03 trips per day.
5. The petitioner no.3 is registered owner of Vehicle No.UP-92-AT0599 duly insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. He has been granted permit by RTA, Jhansi on the route known as Orai to Konch Via Hardoi Gujar, valid from 20.12.2021 to 19.12.2026. The total length of route of petitioner no.3 is 28 Kms and he has been granted time table dated 20.12.2021 by the RTA, Jhansi to ply his vehicles on the aforesaid route 03 trips per day.
6. The petitioner no.4 is registered owner of Vehicle No.UP-22-T6406 duly insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd. He has been granted permit by RTA, Jhansi on the route known as Orai to Nadigaon Via Konch, valid from 18.5.2022 to 17.5.2027. The total length of route of petitioner no.4 is 50 Kms and he has been granted time table dated 20.5.2022 by the RTA, Jhansi to ply his vehicles on the aforesaid route 02 trips per day.
7. The petitioner no.5 is registered owner of Vehicle No.UP-92-T4582 duly insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. He has been granted permit by RTA, Jhansi on the route known as Orai to Salaiya Via Konch, Kailiya, valid from 19.1.2022 to 18.1.2027. The total length of route of petitioner no.5 is 55 Kms and he has been granted time table dated 11.5.2022 by the RTA, Jhansi to ply his vehicles on the aforesaid route 02 trips per day.
8. It is contended that all the petitioners are plying their respective vehicle on their respective routes and regularly paying tax of their vehicles. It is alleged that behind the back of the petitioners a meeting of RTA, Jhansi was held on 5.12.2022 in which a resolution was passed changing/amending the time tables earlier granted to the petitioners curtailing the trips of the petitioners from 3 trips to 2 trips and from 2 trips to single trip. The variation in time table amounts to variation in conditions of permits and the same cannot be done without giving at least one month notice to the operator concerned as has been contemplated under Section 72 (2) (xxii) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (in short "MV Act"). The entire exercise has been done by respondent no.2 in illegal and arbitrary manner without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is also contended that the petitioners have already moved detailed representations for ventilating their grievances but till date the same are unattended.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Section 72 of t
