^^ /^y- ^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER i W.P.(CINO. ^^7/<T/2oio SJNGLE8ENGH Ghanshyam Rathore S/ o Ganga Ram Rathore, aged S^ about years, C/o S. Singh, Imlipara, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1^' ^^;^. ^a^y^\ ^ ^p^" ^••'"^v 2. ^•'t- •^y' 3f .^ •^' ^^^, ^^"~<?:^: State Transport Appellate Tribunal Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Regional Transport Authority, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Sanjay Sarthi, S/o Shri B.S. Sarthi, C.S.E.B. Colony, Pathripara, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA. 4. 5. AF^ mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR a PETITIONER WritPetition CC) No. 4545 of2010 Ghanshyam Rathore. RESPONDENTS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS State Transport Appellate Tribunal Department, & Others. AND Writ Petition rC) No. 4546 of2010 Ghanshyam Rathore. VERSUS State Transport Appellate Tribunal Department, & Others. ^ Post for pronouncement oforder on ./^ day of September, 2010. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^&^^ ^. /'- ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition CC) No. 4545 of2010 Ghanshyam Rathore. VERSUS State Transport Appellate Tribunal Department, & Others. AND Writ Petition fC) No. 4546 of2010 Ghanshyam Rathore. VERSUS State Transport Appellate Tribunal Department, & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnjhotn, J, Present: Shri Ajay Shrivastava with Shri Santosh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Sudeep Johari with Shri Ansul R. Shrivastava, Advocates for the respondent No. 5. ORDER (Delivered on ^. day of September, 2010) 1. Both the writ petitions arise from the same facts and the authority below has allowed the revision filed by the respondent No. 5, by common order dated 10.08.2010 (Annexure P/l) passed in Revision No. 132 and 133 of 2009. Thus, boththewrit petitions are being considered and disposed ofby this common order. ^ 2. The indisputable facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner made an application under section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988') for grant of permanent stage carriage permit on the bus route from Jamnipali to Jashpur, v?o Korba, Balco, Dharamjaigarh, Patthalgaon, Bagbahar, Pandripani, single trip daily and viceversa, before the Regional Transport Authority (for short 'the RTA'), Bilaspur. The respondent No. 5 objected the application on the ground that the distance ofthe route falls within the temtorialjurisdictionof the Regional Transport Authority, Ambikapur. Thus, the respondent No. 2 has no authority to entertain the application for grant ofbus pennit. The application ofthe petitioner as well as the objections of the respondent No.5 were considered and the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, passed the order granting permit under the signature ofR.T.A, Ambikapur. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.5 filed a revision before the respondent No. 1 i.e. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal challenging the order dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure P/2). The question raised by the respondent No. 5 before the Tribunal was that the route from Jashpur to Jamnipali was not notified. The route was from Patthalgaon to Jamnipali and Patthalgaon to Jashpur, separately. The objection ofthe respondent No. 5 was rejected by the Tribunal. The respondent No. 1 held that the route from Jashpur to Jamnipali, via Patthalgaon, Dharamjaigarh, (oH 5. Ghati, Rajgamar, Balco, Korba, vide notification dated 14.06.2004 atserial No. 318. On the second question raised before the Tribunal that the Regional Transport Authority, Bilapsur had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for grant of bus permit on the above stated route for single trip as before making the application by the petitioner on 11.02.2009, theRegional Transport Authority, Ambikapur was notified on 30.01.2009. Thus, the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur had no jurisdiction to consider and grant regular permit for the route Jamnipali to Jashpur. The respondent No. 1-Tribunal, after having examined the facts held that the certificate granted by the Supermtending Engineer, Public Works Department clearly indicates that the distance from Jashpur to Patthalgaon is 126 K.M. and from Jamnipali to Patthalgaon, it is 123 K.M. Admittedly, under the provisions of section 69(1) ofthe Act, 1988, the authority having major portion of the proposed royte alone has competence to entertain application forgrant ofpermit. The Tribunal, having accepted the objection of the respondent No. 5, quashed the order dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, under the signature of RTA, Ambikapur. Thus, this petition. The main contention of leamed counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No. 5 has not raised objection with regard to jurisdiction ofthe RTA, Bilaspur, except the timing ofthebus '/y^.. f' S^;:'' v' I".: ' S®1^^ ' -^ "^'^ . ) ^ r h^iniuunu' route, before the RTA. Thus, the respondent No. 1 has wrongly permitted the respondent No. 5 to raise the issue for the first time before the Tribunal. Other contentions ofleamed counsel for the petitioner are that firstly, the petitioner was not aware of the opening ofthe office ofRTA, Surguja Division, at Ambikapur, and secondly, the distance was almost equal as one route was 123 K.M. and other was 126 K.M. Thus, the RTA, Bilapsur has full authority to entertain the application. Thirdly, the final order was passed by the RTA, Ambikapur. Thus, there is no jurisdictional error. On the other hand, Shri Roy., learned counsel appearing for the State and Shri Sudeep Johri with Shri Ansul R. Shrivastava, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 would submit in support of the impugned order dated 10.08.2010 (Aimexure P/l) passed by the respondent No. 1. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Section 69 ofthe Act, 1988 reads as under: "69. General provisions as to applications for permits. - (1) Every application for a permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles: Provided that ifit is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles in two or more regions lying within the same State, the application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the major portion ofthe proposed route or area lies, and in case the portion ofthe proposed route or area in each ofthe regions is approximately equal., to the Regional Transport Authority ofthe region in which it is proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles: ^ Provided further that if it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicle in two or more regions lying in different States, the application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority ofthe region in which the applicant resides or has his principal place of business. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), the State Govemment may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that in the case of any vehicle or vehicles proposed to be used in two or more regions lying in different states, the application under that sub-section shall be made to the State Transport Authority of the region in which the applicant resides or has his principal place of business." 9. The first proviso to section 69 provides that the application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which a major portion ofthe proposed route or area lies, and in case the portion of the proposed route or area in each of the regions is approximately equal, to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles. No facts have been pleaded with regard to keeping ofthe yehicle or vehicles conferring jurisdiction on the RTA,Bilaspur. 10. Having regard to the distance as recorded by the respondent No. 1, admittedly, major portion ofthe route falls within the region of RTA, Ambikapur as no case has been made out that though, the routes were almost equal, butwhether the vehicle was kept by the petitioner in Bilaspur, is neither considered nor decided. The contention ofthe petitionerthat though the application was made before the RTA, Bilaspur, however, the final order was passed by the RTA, Ambikapur, is noticed to be rejected. In such case, ^ ^^Ji/ *' 6 where RTA, Ambikapur was already in existence, the application of the petitioner ought to have been retumed back to the petitioner at the threshold to make application before the RTA, Ambikapur. It is found that the application ofthe petitioner was considered by the RTA, Bilaspur and only final order was passed under authority ofthe RTA, Ambikapur, as he was holding the additional charge ofthe RTA, Ambikapur also. 11. On pemsal ofthe documents, it appears that the respondent No. 5 has raised the objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction for the first time before the respondent No. 1 and no such objection was raised before the RTA, Bilaspur. The respondent No. 1, without examining the said fact, has allowed the revision filed by the respondent No. 5. 12. The reliance of the petitioner on D.Papiah v. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Others wherein it has been held that the jurisdiction ofthe Regional Transport Authority to grant inter-regional permit depends on the existing area of motorable roads when an application for pemiit is made. There is no dispute about the well-settled principle of law as obser^ed in D.Papiah (supra). 13. Further reliance ofthe petitioner on Mithilesh Garg, etc. etc. v. Union oflndia & Others etc. etc.2, in support ofhis contention that the objection ofthe respondent No. 5 should not have been considered by the RTA, Bilaspur, while granting permit as the -2 AIR 1967 SC 1731 : AIR 1992 SC 443 t"^:.: ^ Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the right of existing operators to file objection and the provision ofthe Act to impose limit on the number ofpermit, have been taken away under the new Act. There is no quarrel on the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg (supra). 14. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, it appears that the respondent No.l-Tribunal has not considered all the facts and law properly while allowing the revision filed by the respondent No.5. Under proviso to section 69(1) ofthe Act, 1988, whether the petitioner was proposing to keep his vehicle or vehicles within the regional jurisdiction of the RTA, Bilaspur to confer jurisdiction on RTA, Bilaspur, was not considered. Thus, the impugned revisional order dated 10.08.2010 (Annexure P/l) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to consider the case afresh on the materials which are necessary for adjudication of the dispute as aforestated, after applying the law properly. 15. It is made clear that observations, if any, made hereinabove, may not be taken as opinion of the Court while adjudicating the dispute by the Tribunal. However, the matter may be considered as early as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order. 16. There shall be no order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit