Reserved Judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Writ Petition No. 749 of 2009 (M/S) Tejendra Rawat and others …………Petitioners Versus Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun, Through its Secretary, District Dehradun And others ………Respondents & Civil Writ Petition No. 785 of 2009 (M/S) Vinod Chandola and others …………Petitioners Versus Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun, Through its Secretary, District Dehradun And others ………Respondents Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Parikshit Saini & Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocates, for the petitioners. Mr. Kailash Joshi, Brief Holder, for the State / respondent No. 1. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. J.S. Bisht, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2. Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate, for the respondent No. 3. 2 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. In both these two writ petitions, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.05.2009, passed by State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short S.T.A.T.), Uttarakhand, in Revision No. 01 of 2009, and Revision No. 02 of 2009, whereby said authority has quashed 263 Stage Carriage Permits, granted vide Resolution dated 27.12.2008. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. (3) Brief facts of the case are that Dehradun- Doiwala is city route covered under the scheme of nationalization vide Notification No. 1037- T/XXX/B/61, dated 16.03.1961. The length of the route is 20 Kms., to which provisions of Section 71 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are applicable. It appears that Sri S.K. Srivastava and Smt. Tejendra Kaur filed Writ Petition No. 1496 (M/S) of 2008 and Writ Petition No. 1503 (M/S) of 2008, respectively, before this High Court, which were disposed of vide order dated 29.09.2008, directing the respondent-Regional Transport Authority (for short R.T.A.) to decide the applications for Stage Carriage Permits, moved by the petitioners. Initially in all 255 applications were received for the 3 permits which were placed before R.T.A. for consideration in its meeting held on 27.12.2008. The Resolution No. 12 passed on 27.12.2008 reads as under: “ladYi Lka[;k&12 en la[;k&12 ds vUrZxr nsgjknwu&MksbZokyk ekxZ ij LFkkbZ lokjh xkM+h ijfeV tkjh djus ds lEcU/k esa Jh ,l0 ds0 JhokLro o Jheuh rstsUnj dkSj }kjk nk;j ;kfpdk la[;k&1496@,e,l@08 rFkk ;kfpdk la[;k&1503@,e,l@08 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] UkSuhrky }kjk ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 29&09&2008 ds vuqikyu esa mijksDr ekxZ ij LFkkbZ lokjh xkM+h ijfeV gsrq izkIr ;kfpdkdrkZvksa rFkk vU; izkfFkZ;ksa ds izkFkZuk i=ksa dks fopkj o vkns’k gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;kA bl ekxZ ij 255 izkFkZuk Ik= izkIr gq, gSa] ftudk fooj.k ifjf’k"V “d” esa fn;k x;k gSA bl lEcU/k esa Jh ,l0 ds0 JhokLro izkf/kdj.k ds le{k mifLFkr gq, vkSj mUgksus voxr djk;k fd fefFkys’k xxZ ds dsl ds IkSjk ua0&6 dk gokyk nsrs gq, dgk fd iz’uxr ekxZ ij ijfeV tkjh fd;s tk ldrs gSA ekxZ ds vkWijsVj Jh eueksgu flag fc"V us bl ekxZ ij ijfeV tkjh djus ds fo:) vkifRr djrs gq, fuosnu fd;k fd ekxZ ij ijfeV nsus gsrq izkIr izkFkZuk i=ksa dks LFkfxr fd;k tk;A izkf/kdj.k us iz’uxr izdj.k ij xaHkhjrk ls fopkj fd;k rFkk fopkjksijkar fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd ifjf’k"V “d” rFkk vuqiwjd lwph esa mfYyf[kr lHkh izkfFkZ;ksa dks nsgjknwu&MksbZokyk uxj cl ekxZ dk ,d&,d LFkkbZ ijfeV bl izfrcU/k ds lkFk Lohd`r fd;k tkrk gS fd ijfeV ubZ okgu ls gh izkIr fd;k 4 tk;sxkA Lohd`r ijfeV ubZ okgu ds oS/k izi= izLrqr djus ij fnukad 31&03&2009 rd izkIr fd;k tk ldrk gSA rRi’pkr Lohd`fr Lor% lekIr le>h tk;sxhA ;g Hkh izfrcU/k yxk;k tkrk gS fd Lohd`r ijfeV ij lapkfyr okgu dk izfrLFkkiu ,d o"kZ ls iwoZ Lohd`r ugha fd;k tk;sxkA” (4) Respondent No. 2 Manmohan Singh Bisht and respondent No. 3 Jasveer Singh challenged the Resolution, whereby in fact 267 permits were granted in one go on 27.12.2008, by filing revisions before S.T.A.T., Uttarakhand, Dehradun, which were registered as Revision No. 01 of 2009 and Revision No. 02 of 2009. These two respondents are the two of seventeen existing stage carriage permit holders in the route in question and felt aggrieved by sudden 267 new permits granted by R.T.A.. The Resolution dated 27.12.2008 was challenged by the revisionists (present respondents No. 2 and 3) on the ground that R.T.A. did not scrutinize the applications and granted permits in a mechanical manner without any application of mind. It is also alleged by them in the grounds of their revisions before S.T.A.T. that there was no timetable annexed with some of the applications. Many of the applications were without affidavits. Some of the applications for Stage Carriage Permit were post dated. The Resolution dated 27.12.2008 is challenged also on the ground that no survey 5 regarding width of the road, availability of fuel and population control was made. (5) The R.T.A., Dehradun, and the present petitioners, who were the respondents in the revisions, contested the revisions. The R.T.A., Dehradun, stated that before 27.12.2008 Stage Carriage Permits were granted for 17 vehicles. It is alleged by the respondents in the revisions that the revisionists (present respondents No. 2 and 3) want to maintain their monopoly on the route as such their revisions are not maintainable. It is stated by R.T.A., Dehradun, before S.T.A.T. that the permits were issued in compliance of orders dated 29.09.2008, passed in Writ Petition No. 1496 (M/S) of 2008 and Writ Petition No. 1503 (M/S) of 2008, keeping in view the liberal policy in granting permits laid down by the apex court in Mithilesh Garg Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1992 Supreme Court 443. (6) The S.T.A.T. summoned the record of R.T.A. relating to Resolution No. 12 passed in the meeting held on 27.12.2008, and found that R.T.A. has issued the permits completely in violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Rules framed thereunder. The S.T.A.T. further held that many of the applications were unsigned, many of them without affidavits, many of them without 6 timetable and many of them received after the Resolution is passed. The S.T.A.T. further found that while granting the permits the terms and conditions of the nationalization scheme dated 16.03.1961, moved vide notification dated 05.08.1994 were violated. It further found granting of 267 permits in one go was violative of provisions of Rule 58, 62, 63 and 64 of rules framed under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Only in respect of four opposite parties Serial No. 193, 194, 195 and 196, the applications were found complete in all respects. With these findings the S.T.A.T. quashed the Resolution dated 27.12.2008, whereby 267 permits were granted. However, it is directed by the S.T.A.T. that permits be issued to Mithilesh Rani (w/o Bhushan Kumar), Om Prakash (s/o Lakshmi Chand), Ram Kumar (s/o Chaman Lal), and Gurbaksh Singh (s/o Rajendra Singh). Hence, these two writ petitions filed by the 37 petitioners out of 263 persons whose permits were cancelled. (7) All the three respondents filed their separate counter affidavits in which respondents No. 2 and 3, who were revisionists before the S.T.A.T., have reiterated the same grounds on which the granting of 267 permits was challenged in the revisions. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of R.T.A. the same objections are reiterated as stated by them before the S.T.A.T.. Said objections have already been mentioned above. 7 (8) Before further discussions, it is pertinent to mention here the relevant provisions of law applicable to the case. Chapter-V of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contains provisions relating to control of transport vehicles, and Chapter-VI of the Act provides special provisions relating to State Transport undertakings. Section 98 of the Act provides that provisions contained in Chapter VI have overriding effect over the provisions contained in Chapter-V. Section 70 (which is one of Section of Chapter V) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides that a person is entitled to make application for permit in respect of a Stage Carriage. It requires that in the application following points be mentioned:- (a) the route or routes or the area or areas to which the application relates; (b) the type and seating capacity of each such vehicle; (c) the minimum and maximum number of daily trips proposed to be provided and the time-table of the normal trips. (d) the number of vehicles intended to be made for the housing, maintenance and repair of the vehicles, for the comfort and 8 convenience of passengers and for the storage and safe custody of luggage; (e) the arrangements intended to be made for the housing, maintenance and repair of the vehicles, for the comfort and convenience of passengers and for the storage and safe custody of luggage; (f) such other matters as may be prescribed. Section 71 of the Act provides procedure by which the Regional Transport Authority has to process the application for granting the licence. Sub section (2) of said Section empowers R.T.A. to refuse to grant a stage carriage permit, if it appears from any time-table furnished that the provisions of the Act relating to speed at which vehicles may be driven are likely to be contravened. Sub section (3) of Section 71 of the Act empowers the State Government and R.T.A., if so directed by the Central Government, to limit the number of stage carriages operating in city routes and the State / R.T.A. may reserve certain permits for members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Section 90 empowers State Transport Appellate Tribunal to exercise revisional powers in respect of the non-appealable orders passed by 9 State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority. In the present case S.T.A.T. has exercised its revisional powers under said Section. (9) It is admitted to the parties that the city route in question is part of the nationalized route notified vide Notification No. 1037-T/XXX/B/61, dated 16.03.1961. It is also not disputed between the parties that the said scheme of nationalization was modified before creation of State of Uttarakhand vide Notification No. 2134/XXX-2- 14-240/93, dated 05.08.1994 (applicable to the State of Uttarakhand), which empowered the R.T.A. to treat the city route within the radius of 20 Kms. of Dehradun. (10) The R.T.A. in their counter affidavit has stated that when the impugned resolution was passed on 27.12.2008, 17 Buses of stage carriage permits were operating in the route in question. It is further stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of R.T.A. that though all the applications were accepted in the resolution, but there was condition to lift the permits by 31st March 2009, and it was only 46 private bus operators who actually got permits as others did not turn up. On behalf of petitioners and respondent No. 1 it is argued that in fact not more than 46 permits were issued in respect of the city route between 10 Dehradun and Doiwala. On this ground, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners and R.T.A. that the grounds taken by the present respondents No. 2 and 3 challenging the resolution No. 12 passed by R.T.A. in its meeting held on 27.12.2008 were wrong as actual permits issued were not 267 but only 46. (11) In reply to this, on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 it is argued that though only 46 applicants are said to have turned up to collect their permits by 31st March 2009, after purchasing their Bus, but the action on the part of R.T.A. to sanction permits to all the applicants is clearly unjustified, improper and against the Rules. It is contended on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 that function of R.T.A. is quasi judicial in nature. There is no explanation from the side of the petitioners or from the side of the R.T.A., Dehradun, that as to how 267 applications for permits were accepted when Resolution No. 12 related to total number of 255 applications. There is no explanation from the side of the petitioners and R.T.A. as to how the requirements mentioned in Section 70 to be disclosed in the applications were met. After weighing the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that the R.T.A. has acted in the present case totally in violation of Rules in passing the resolution dated 27.12.2008. I agree with learned 11 S.T.A.T. that the public roads cannot be made racing grounds endangering human lives, by issuing permits arbitrarily to any number of applicants. To achieve the object of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and its Rules, fresh survey should have been done to examine the number of vehicles required to be increased on a particular route in addition to the State Transport Buses plying over it, which appears to have not been done. (12) On behalf of petitioners attention of this Court is drawn to the case of Mithilesh Garg Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1992 Supreme Court 443, and it is submitted that a liberal approach is required to be made in granting the licence to provide competitive transport facilities. I have carefully gone through the said case law. It nowhere says that the transport authorities should issue permits on nationalized routes, to any number of persons without caring to see as to what is the requirement in the route in question. It is pertinent to mention here that the revisional authorities (S.T.A.T.) has observed after summoning the record that many of the applications were unsigned, many of them without affidavits, many of them without timetable and many of them received after the Resolution is passed. 12 (13) Sri S.N. Babulkar, Senior Advocate, drew attention of this Court to the case of Manick Chandra Nandy Vs. Debdas Nandy and others AIR 1986 Supreme Court 446, and it is contended that there is distinction between revisional powers and appellate jurisdiction. In this connection it is further contended that the revisional court has no authority to substitute its own findings. I have gone through said case law. It relates to interpretation of Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and not to Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 115 of the Code itself provides the parameters for exercising revisional jurisdiction in respect of the suits and the proceedings to which the Code is applicable. As to the revisional powers conferred under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 attention of this Court is drawn to the case of Rajesh Kumar and others Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal 1992 AWC 1852, in which it has been held by the Allahabad High Court that the powers of the S.T.A.T. are co- extensive with that of the R.T.A., as such this Court does not find any error of law committed by the revisional authority (S.T.A.T.) in passing the impugned order. (14) Lastly, on behalf of petitioners it is argued that in the matter of granting new permits, the 13 existing operators have no right of being heard, and it is further argued that normally an act performed by R.T.A. is presumed to be regularly performed. In this connection, reliance is placed in Smt. Jameela Begum & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 2006 Allahabad 144. I have gone through said case law. In the opinion of this Court said case law does not held the present petitioners. The respondents No. 2 and 3 in this petition who are existing operators have nowhere claimed before S.T.A.T. that they should have been heard before issuing new permits. As far as the presumption of regularity is concerned, the facts of this case are so glaring as mentioned in the impugned order of S.T.A.T. as to the what manner the applications were taken up and disposed of by the resolution dated 27.12.2008, regarding which I have already discussed above. Where the R.T.A. has completely given go by to the Rules in issuing permits to 267 applicants whose applications were not even properly filled, it cannot be said that the act on the part of the authority was regularly performed. Learned Standing Counsel defending the issuance of the permits submitted that there were complaints from the public and peoples representatives that 60-70 passengers are traveling in the Buses of the capacity of 30-50 passengers, as such there is no illegality in issuing new permits. Having considered the facts and 14 circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no doubt new permits can be issued by R.T.A., Dehradun, in the route in question but it should be done by following the procedure under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Rules framed thereunder. (15) For the reasons as discussed above, these two writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. The same are dismissed with the observation that the R.T.A. may consider afresh the applications of the petitioners for issuance of the permits in the impugned route Dehradun-Doiwala but only in accordance with law. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 21.08.2009 NS