l^ c I"'1 l^ INTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISG PETITI 2-iee / M.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through its D'.visiona! Mar.ager, MP.S.R.T.C. Bilaspur (C.G) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Transport, D.K. Bhavan, Secretariat, Raipur(C.G) 2) The Regional Transport Authority Bilaspur (Chhattisgah) 4 ..H PETITIOER ^ 3) 4) RESPONDENTS TheSecretary, ___ ..-^./C'1' Regional Transport Authority Cum R.T.O ^S 'j--*^ (Regionat-TransportOfficer) ^ ^•.••-""^^••'' ^^o.^-^^o.^..'" sspur Shri Anil Kumar Duggal Bus Operator, R/o. Ambikapur (C.G) p. t-t*: &-•. •rf> a!^K "::...^- ^^' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF CQNSTiTUTSON OF INDIA, A^- HIGH COURT OF^HHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P.Ko.2166/2002 In the inatter of wrlt petitlon under Articles 826 & 227 ofCoastltuUon ofladia M. P. State Road Trausport Corporation Versus State of Chliattisgarh & Others Petltioner. Respoadents For pentioner Shri P.R.PataiAar, Adv. For icspondents ; Shri Raubir Singh, G.A. No. 1 to 3. Date of Order PRESENT 29.03.2003 HON'BLB SHRI JUSTICB P.C.NAIK This petition uiider Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation (Bilaspur) for issuance of a writ of cerfriorari quashing the order and temporaiy pemiit granted to fbie respondent No.4 vide Annexure P-3. Further prayer is for issuance of a writ of maadamus directing respondeut No. 1 not to grant teinporary permits to private operators on notified route aad in contravention of the orders of the State Cliliattisgarh aad statutory provisions. 2. The respondent No.4 had appUed for a grojit of stage carriage permit for the route Ambikapur to Raigarh via Sitapur, Patlialgaon, Dharauijaigarh aad back. Acconling to tjbie petitioner, the route between Ambikapur aad Ra^arh is rescrvcd undcr thc natioaalizcd Schcinc No.52 M aiid Clause (g) whcreof prohibits private opcrators froui plyiag thcir vchiclcs on fbc nationaUzed route. It is thc casc of thc petitioner that ia coinplete contravention of the statatoiy provisions and settled legat position, tbe respondent No.3 in OE arbitran' inanner and without invitiiig objection froin fhe petitioner- Corporation granted teiia.porary pennit to fhe respondent No.4, which is liable to be quashed. Adinittedly, the said pemutwas for the period 26-9-02 to 31-10-2002. 3. On. the prayer of the leamed counsel for the pentioner Humdast notice was ordered to be issued to respondent No.4. Howcver, as fhe record indicatcs, servicc report has aot bccn filcd. Leamcd Statc counsel tiad takcu notice on bchalf of thc respondcnts No.l to 3 aiid a prcluninaiy objcction has becn filed statmg that as the M.P. State Road Traasport Corporation has been dissolved, so far as tbe State of C. G. is concemed the petitioa has beconie irifi-uctuous. 4. It is not doubt true, fhat by efflux of time aad also because of the fact that the M.P. State Road Traasport C^rporation has ceased its operation within the State of C.G. as it has been dissolved, but the Coiut considers it necessary to make some observations as regards fhe duty of the concemed Traiisport Authorities while coiisidering applications for grant of teiuporary pcrmits. 5. Stuce at the tune wtien fhe petition was filed M.P. State Road Transport Corporation was in existence, while considcnag application for graat of tcinporary permits, thc traasport authorily ought to have takcn iuto con.sldcration provisions contamed in Section 104 ofM.P. MotorVehicles Act, 1988 and Sub-rule (3) (e) of Ruk 72 of M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which relates to restriction of graut of penuit ia respect of a notified area or notified route. This Sectk)n lavs down fhat where a scheiue has been pubUshed uiider Sub-Section (3) of Section 100 of the Act ia respect of aay notified area or notified route, fhe State Traasport Authority or fhe Rcgional Transport Aufhority, as the case may be, shatl not graat any pennit except in accordance wifti fhe provisions of fhe scheine. It is only in those cases where the State Tran.sport undertaking does not apply for a permit in respect of notified area or nottfled route in. pursuaace of aa approved scheine can. the State Transport Aufhority or the Rcgional Transport Autiiority, as thc casc uiay bc, grant teniporary pcnuits to any pcrson in rcspcct of such notificd arca or notificd route? Furthcr, undcr the proviso such teinporaiy pennits shaU cease to be effective on the issue of a penuit to the State Traasport u.ttdertaking in respect of that area or route. FTirfher in case where aa application for pennit is niade for a route where sonie pordon of it is covered by aay natiouaUzed scheiue fhe applicaat, hi terms of Sub-Rule (3) (e) of Rule 72 of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Act, 1994, is obliged to give a declaration rtuly certified by au Officer of fhe M.P. State Transport Corporation authorized by tl' the Managmg Director with respect to portion and distance of the route covered by aay uationalizatioa sclieine. These requireiacnts do not appcar to havc been coinpUed with/fulfUled by thc respondcnt No.3 iti this case. Bc that as it uiay, in view of thc changed situation nothtag m.0rc ueed to bc said on this aspect. However, it ruay be obser/ed fhat graat of teinporaiy penuit is govemed by fhe provisions contaiiied in Section 87 of the M.P. Motor Veblcles Act, 1988. This section coiifers fhe power on the Regional Transport Authority to grant teinporaiy peraiits but it also lays down the purposes for wiiich the teinporary permit can be graated. These are raeiltioned in Clauses (a) to (d) of the said Section. It is now a settled position that the power to graut temporary permits camiot be exercised unless the specific and particular circuinstaaces nientioned in the Clauses (a) to (d) exist and for this reason it caa be said that even the appUcation for grant of a teinporaiy pennit should indicate the purpose for whicfa it is clauned. That apart, fhe authority is also obUgcd to givc reasous wliich would iudicate tbc purposc for which a tciupoxaiy pci-mit has bccn granted. A teraporary pcrm.it is not to bc graated aiecbarucaUy, at the inere asking of the operator and on the whims of the Transport Authorities, as this would be in contravention of fhe statutory provisions relattttg to graiit of teinporai^' pennits. It is hoped that the coaceraed authorities will keep the statutory provisions ia mind while coiisidering the appUcations for grant of a temiporary permit. 6. A copy of this oider should be sent to the Transport Coiiimissioner aud it is expected of him to impress upon the concci-ncd authoritics who are deattug with thc grant of tenipoi-ary pcrmits tfaat thcy should kccp iu minril thc idcvarit statutoiy provisions w^bilc grantuig tefliporaiy pcnnits. 7, Wifh. the aforcsaid observations and directions, thc writ petitton stands disposed of. Consequently M.W.P. No. 1234/2002 and I.A. No.6987/2002 for urgent hearmg also stand disposed of. ~—~~^~ P.C NAIK Judge I/- <-/ I-/ — -