't'iiW-i'SSS'SSSS&SSS^^^fSS^ "&. WA A''^~ 1 ?s s ''tl^ ''!;. ^f ,<»?' ^10 HI6H COURT OF CHHATTI80ARH. BILASPOR DB; HON'BLB I.M. QUDDUSI & HON'BLB N.K. AGRAWAL, JJ W.P (C| No. S194of 3009 v». WRIT PBTITIOM UNDESR AR'HCT^ »2»OF THE C01ISTIT8TIOM OFIHDIA APPEARAMCB: Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, couasd for fhe Petitiaaer. Mr. Yasfawant Siagh Thakur, Deputy Advocate Qcneral for tfae State/Tcspoiident ORAt ORDBR (18.08.2010» Per I.M. OUDD08I. J I. By this writ petition filed under Articte 226 of tfae Constitutioa of bidia, petitioner bas ehaUeaged the Notification dated 15.01.2009 whereby the amendment in the C.G. Motoiyaa Niyam 1994 has bcen Baade as Clause (l- A) ofSub-Rute(l) ofRiilc 77 which reads as wader. u< "(1-A) Jt shall be coaditioa of eveiy sta^e carriage peimit or conttact carriage peraut fhat fhe said permlt shaU not be kept in aoa-use foT moze than Iwo months at a timc aad dxuing the validily of the said pennit, fhe total diBatioa of such non-use shaB not bc moic tiiaa ejght months. Due to techaical break dcwn or acddent ofvehide, ;if fhc pcnnit is kept in non- use for more fhan two months or for otfacr reasons, if 13ac vclucte of the penait is not opcrated for more fhan two monlhs fccn the/ PETITIONBR Upendia Singh, s/o Late Devnandau Singh, agwt about 45 ycars, R/o Kodatarai, Rsdgarb, District Ragarh (C.G). RBfflPOiroB»T8 State of ChbattisgaA through the Secretaiy, Department of Traasport Mautralaya, D.K.S. Bhawau, Raipur (C.G). • -^' -s *•---, .'^ ."'^ !dl' b^ permit-holder shafl have to replace the vehicte of same specifications or fhe permit shaU be surrendered for cancellatwn beforc fhe aufhority graatiag the permit." 2. Learaed counscl for fhe petitioner subinits that fisdng time limit is contraiy to Rule 12 of the C.G. Motoryan Karadhan Rules 1991 in which no time Thnit has been fixed. In Rule 12 of Rulcs, 1991, the provision has been made to deposit fhe pemut with Taxation Authority aad no tijna.e lunit has been fixed for that 3. To our opinion, the provjslon of Clausc (1-A) inserted aSter Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 77 of the C.G. Motoryan Niyam, 1994 and that of Riite 12 of the Chhattisgarh Motoryaa Karadhaa Rules 1991 are indepeiident provisions. Ifa penait holder docs not waat to ply his vehicle, he Ktay deposit the Ponn under Rule 12 of tfac Riries, 1991 wifh thc Taxation Authority. Tbe intention is fhat he may not be Uable to pay fhe tax or chaiges afber sun-endering/depositmg the saaie but Clause (1-^ of sub-rule (1) Rule 77 is meant for fhe convenience of the general pubUc. Saviug a pennit holdcr fioni payment of tax on subiaission of the pennit with fhe taxation authorily for any period has no relation with fhe permit holder of stage carriage or contract carriage to pty the vehicle for the convexiieace of fhe public. It is provided in Clause (1-A) that the permit holder shouJd icplace his vehicte if fhc saaie js kcpt in aon-use for inore thaa 2 inonths due to technical brake-downs or for ofher reasons. It is further prowded that ia case of penmt hcdders of stage carriage or contract cacnage, the total non-use of penait ^f shaU not be more fhan 8 months during the total vaUdily period. Therefore, we sec no illegalily in Clausc (1-A) which has been inserted by way of aineudiuent after sub-rulc (1) of Rute77. 4. However, at this stage, leamed eounsel for the petitiouer has raised objection that ia case llie vehicle is requisitioned for dection duly or any stay order is granted by Qie Court and if the permit ho]der M aot in a positfon to keep fhc wehicle for non-use for niore fhan two months fhen hfo vchicle wffi be treated under non-use for xuore than two inonfhs. To our opinion, fhe vehicle caimot be treated uader non-use in casc the vetucle is requisitioned for the piirpose of etection as ia the election duty also ttie vehicle wffl reniain in use. Further in respect of stay order of fhe Courts, the saine is binding on the parties to the Utfgation and fhcrefore, the period of stay caunot be counted towards the non-use of the permifc The mtention of Clause (1-A) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 77 is (hat a permit holder canaot run the vehicle at his discretfon for his own reason or at his sweet wfll. In view of the above, no case is inade out in &VOI.H- of fhe petitioner. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to cosfc Sd;- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Rao