IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 1713 of 2011 Date of decision: 25.07.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Sudesh Kumar. .....Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & another. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following substantive prayers: “(i) That the impugned Annexures PE and PF dated 24.2.2010 and 6.1.2010 may kindly be quashed and set- aside. (ii) That the respondent No. 2 may kindly be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of stage carriage route permits on the routes mentioned in Annexure-PA.” 2. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide paras 6 to 13on merits: “6. With regard to this para it is submitted that petitioner had given an application dated 27.02.2003 whereby he informed that he had booked chassis of 1512 TC of 36 seaters, but the chassis of this capacity could not become available. The petitioner further stated that the validity of grant letter be extended upto two months so that whenever chassis of the above capacity becomes available, he could purchase the same and build the body. It is also submitted that the petitioner has attached with the application a certificate issued by the Sikand and Company whereby the Company had stated that the chassis of the above model is presently not 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... available with them. The assertion of the appellant that he could not ply the buses for want of bus chassis can not be relied upon as the petitioner could have purchased/explored the possibility of availability of chassis from other company also, but the petitioner failed to do so and thereby could not ply the buses on the sanctioned route with in the stipulated period. 7. This para is admitted to the extent that the petitioner managed to purchase two buses and plied one bus on the route Palampur-Keylong and another on Dharamsala-Kaylong on the sanctioned route permit. It is submitted that as per condition of grant letter issued vide letter No. 1584 dated 14.10.2002 the petitioner was supposed to produce the buses and make the route operational with in a period of six months. This was the obligation of the petitioner. If the bus was not available with any particular firms/company, the appellant could have purchased the chassis of another approved model from any other firm/company and thereby he could have made the sanctioned route permit operational within the stipulated period. The extension of the time period beyond the limit could not be granted. It is further submitted that the petitioner could have at least made one route permit operational completely out of two sanctioned stage carriage route permits by entering the both buses to complete the two singe trips. 8. That the contents of this para are admitted to the extent that a letter had been issued to the petitioner vide letter No. 1324 dated 18.9.2004 whereby the petitioner had been advised to apply for modification on the prescribed proforma for each 1st permits those were not made operational within stipulated period due to which 1st permits of both route permits were deemed cancelled and also complete other formalities in this behalf or apply afresh for concern route permits one ST daily so that the matter could be placed before the RTA for consideration. 9. The petitioner had applied for the grant of different route permits which came up for consideration before the Regional Transport Authority meeting held on 25.06.2007. The route permit applied by the petitioner as follow: 1. Manali-Kaza 2ST 2. Chamba-Kaza 2ST 3. Chamba-Kaza via Jot 2ST 4. Kaylong-Palampur 2ST 5. Kaylong-Dharamsala 2ST The RTA after consideration of the route permits decided to reject because the routes were found beyond Transport Policy and Manali-Kaza route rejected because of no summer route had been suggested. The ...3... extract of proceedings of RTA meeting held on 25.6.2007 is annexed at Annexure R 1 it is pertinent to mention here that transport policy framed by the Govt. had become effective w.e.f. 22.07.2004. It is also submitted that RTA meeting had not been convened between 2004 to 2007. The petitioner had been informed of the decision of the RTA vide letter No. 1893 dated 16.08.2007. Therefore the allegation of the petitioner that decision taken upon the application of the petitioner was never conveyed to him is baseless. Copy of letter dated 16.08.2007 is annexed at Annexure R-II. 10. With regard to this para it is submitted that the petitioner had preferred an application under RTI Act-2005 dated 05.11.2009 to supply the proceeding of RTA meeting held on October-2002. The petitioner also sought information with regard to the grant of the route permit in favour of one Shri Bhim Sen which was also supplied to him on 06.01.2010 alongwith certified copy of 8th RTA meeting held on 02.08.2008 not on 01.08.2002. It is also admitted that in RTA meeting held on 02.08.2008 the RTA decided grant two route permits i.e. Aut-Kullu [3RT] & Aut-Kullu [4RT] in favour of Sh. Bhim Sen S/o Sh. Devi Singh R/o Vill-Takoli, Sub- Tehsil Aut. Distt. Mandi. It is also admitted that the said routes were initially granted in favour of Shri Bhim Sen on 1.11.2002 and the said routes were restored by the RTA in its meeting held on 2.8.2008 after considering the circumstances mentioned by Shri Bhim Sen. 11. That the contents of this para is admitted to the extent that Shri Bhim Sen was initially granted route permit Aut-Kullu 3RT & Aut-Kullu 4RT in the year 2002, but Shri Bhim Sen could not purchase the bus due to illness of his father and later on the RTA in its meeting held on 2.8.2008 granted the same route permits on the ground of illness of his father. The petitioner had given different reasons for not purchasing the bus which was not reliable because the appellant could have purchased or explored the possibility of purchasing the bus from other company also. It is admitted that the appellant sought information under RTI with regard the proceeding of the RTA meeting dated 19.1.2010. The information as sought was sent to the appellant. It is further submitted that the case with regard to grant of route permit of Palampur Kaylong 2ST and Dharamsala- Kaylong 2ST was figured vide item No. 9 before the RTA in its meeting held on 19.1.2010. The RTA after deliberation decided that the application of the appellant had already been rejected in previous RTA meeting held on 22.10.2009 and the RTA find no reasons to interfere in the orders already passed in the previous RTA meeting. Hence the application of the ...4... petitioner dated 12.1.2010 was rejected by the RTA. 12. With regard to this para it is submitted that the case of the appellant had already been considered by the RTA sympathetically for grant/modification of route permit, but the appellant failed to purchase the bus and thereby could not make the route so sanctioned operational. The Govt. of HP framed Transport Policy in the year 2004 making it effective w.e.f. July, 2004 and the case of appellant appeared before the RTA only after 2004. the RTA decided the cases figured before it as per policy framed by the Govt. The appellant had applied each time afresh so the case of appellant had also been decided in the light of policy in force at that time. Therefore the RTA has rightly rejected the case of grant of route permit of the appellant. 13. With regard to this para it is submitted that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the HPSTAT under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 which was dismissed by the HPSTAT on dated 6.1.2001.” 3. It is seen from the records that a similar request made by one Shri Bhim Sen for renewal/modification of route permits was favourably considered and granted by respondent No. 2 in its meeting held on 2nd August, 2008, as per information supplied to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, vide Annexure P-D, the only difference being that whereas in the case of the said Shri Bhim Sen the ground was illness of his father, in the case of the petitioner, though he had booked the chassis(s) with M/s Sikand and Company, Authorized Telco Dealers, yet the same being out of stock and not available could not be supplied to him by the said dealer in time. 4. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Consequently, Annexures PE, dated 24.2.2010 and Annexure, P-F dated 06.01.2011 are quashed with a direction to respondent No. 2 to re-consider the case of the petitioner for renewal/modification of ...5... route permits issued in his favour vide letter Annexure PA, dated 14.10.2002, subject to availability of routes as on now, within a month from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner or in its next meeting, whichever is earlier, after affording him an opportunity of being heard, if so desired. 5. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 25th July, 2011 (virender)