Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 7850
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MUNNURI LAXMAN
HANUMANDAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 2746 / 2025
Mr. Saurabh Maheshwari, Mr. Milap Chopra
The right to seek a special permit under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be denied based on third-party complaints, and authorities must consider new applications fairly.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 88(8) - Writ petition challenging the denial of the right to apply for a special permit - The petitioner previously held a permanent permit for a specific route, which was stayed by the court due to a third-party challenge - The court found that the right to seek a special permit cannot be deprived based on third-party complaints. (Paras 6, 7, 8)
(B) Right to operate - The court emphasized that the petitioner retains the right to apply for a special permit for other routes, irrespective of the stay on the original permit. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was denied the right to apply for a special permit after a third party challenged his existing permit, leading to a stay order. The petitioner claimed he was not operating on the disputed route due to the stay.
Findings of Court:
The court set aside the order prohibiting the petitioner from applying for a special permit and directed the authorities to consider any new applications.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could be denied the right to apply for a special permit based on third-party complaints.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to seek a special permit cannot be revoked due to allegations from third parties, and the authorities must consider new applications without bias from previous permits.
Result: The impugned order is set aside, and the petitioner is allowed to apply for a special permit.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
01/05/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the respondent No.3, whereunder the right of the petitioner to make an application for special permit and to consider such application was denied by way of the impugned order.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that previously the petitioner was granted permanent permit to operate on the Hanumangarh Ellenabad interstate route and some third party has challenged the said permit in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10731/2024 : Hari Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and this Court in the said writ petition has stayed the permit vide order dated 19.07.2024. Consequent to the said stay order the respondent authorities have directed the petitioner not to operate the vehicle bearing No. RJ31 PA 4959 on the Hanumangarh Ellenabad interstate route.
3. It appears that the third party has made a complaint to the authorities complaining that inspite of stay order granted by this Court and communication addressed by the respondent authorities, the petitioner continues to operate on the said route. On the basis of such allegations, the impugned order has been passed.
4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not operating the vehicle bearing No. RJ31 PA 4959 on the Hanumangarh Ellenabad interstate route on account of the stay order passed by this Court and consequential proceedings issued by the respondent authorities. However, he has a right to operate on the other route basing on the special permit. According to him, by virtue of the impugned order his right to operate the vehicle on the special permitted route has been deprived. Therefore, he is before this Court.
5. Mr. Milap Chopra, learned counsel for the respondent – State submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to operate the vehicle on the Hanumangarh Ellenabad interstate route on account of the stay order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10731/2024 and consequential proceedings issued by the respondent authorities. However, if any application is filed by the petitioner seeking special permit to operate on a different route other than the Hanumangarh Ellenabad interstate route, the application of the petitioner would be considered basing on the applicable law.
6. In the background of the said submissions, Section 88 Sub- Section 8 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1988) is relevant, which reads hereunder:
“88. Validation of permits for use outside region in which granted. …..
(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), but subject to any rules that may be made under this Act by the Central Government, the Regional Transport Authority of any one region or, as the case may be, the State Transport Authority, may, for the convenience of the public, 1[grant a special permit to any public service vehicle including any vehicle covered] by a permit issued under section 72 (including a reserve stage carriage) or under section 74 or under sub-section (9) of this section for carrying a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract, express or implied, for the use of the vehicle as a whole without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract, and in every case where such special permit is granted, the Regional Transport Authority shall assign to the vehicle, for display thereon, a special distinguishing mark in the form and manner specified by the Central Government and such special permit shall be valid in any other region or State without the countersignature of the Regional Transport Authority of the other region or of the State Transport Authority of the other State, as the case may be. ….”
7. From a reading of the above provision it is clear that dehors the permit covered under Section 72, 74 and 88(9) of the Act of 1988, the operator is entitled to seek a special permit for a particular route
