e'Mfi C RC&.SfE- e'S'SlaLt Dcraiii c- ^ 'l^ ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH C^URTLOFCHiIATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER ^~ ^ ^^ -y^ ^v"' A.-'"" ^' W.P.(C) N0. S2-"72^ /2010 : ^ Durg District Bus Mini Bus Owner Association, Reg. No. 10822, Through President + ...•' Prakash Deshlahara, S/o .*** ^t*' Phoolchand Deshlahara, aged about 52 years, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Transport Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. State Transport Authority D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Regional Transport Officer, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. RESPONDENTS //'' b- PETITIONER HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.3272 OF 2010 Durg District Bus Mini Bus Owner Association RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 21st day of October, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 3-6-2010 (Annexure - P/2) passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, whereby it has been directed to paint the body of bus with light cream colour and further on both the sides of bus there should be an indjcation with white colour in 9" strip to the effeet that "authorized by the Government of Chhattisgarh" and further resolution No.42/2010 dated 22-4-2010 (Annexure - P/1) whereby the decision has been taken to paint the bus and show indication on the bus with white colour that "authorized by the Government of Chhattisgarh". 2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner is an association of private bus operators carrying on the business by plying buses under regular and temporary permits granted by the authorities in different parts of the State of Chhattisgarh. The sole contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, to challenge the impugned order dated 3-6-2010 and the resolution dated 22-4-2010, is that by resolution, no direction to paint a bus with any particular colour can be issued unless the order is passed by the State Transport Authority (for short "the Authority") by general or special order, as provided under sub-rule ©,L( (2) of Rule 116 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (for short "the Rules, 1994"). 3. On the other hand, Shri Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the State, submits that the resolution was passed by the Authority on 22-4-2010, which was converted to order passed by the Additional Transport Commission on 21-5-2010 (Annexure - R/1). Thus, there is a sufficient compliance of provision of sub-rule (2) of Rule 116 of theAct, 1994. 4. ] have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 5. It is a trite law that a resolution is not an order and the same cannot be given effect to unless a proper formal order is passed on the basis of resolution by the competent authority. It has been held in a catena of decisions of the Supreme'Court that resolution is a'mere guideline or recommendation and the same is not effective ipso facto. (See New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Nusli Neville Wadia & Anr.1). 6. This Court in Khatbadan Singh Parihar v. State of C.G. & Others2, held that 'resolution' is an expression of the opinion of the members who have come out to a unanimous conclusion but the 'resolution' by itself does not have the force of law. 7. . On perusal of the documents, it is found that the impugned order dated 3-6-2010 was passed on the basis of resolution of the Authority dated 22-4-2010. There is no formal or proper order has Jseen passed by the Authority, as the same has not been produced before the Court by the State respondents. The order, on which, learned counsel appearing for the State places reliance is not the order passed by the Authority, but appears to be a letter from the ' 2008 AIR SCW 208 2WP (S) No.2115 of 2009 (decided on 19-3-2010) »^> Additional Transport Commissioner addressed to all Regional Transport Authorities directing to comply with the resolution dated 22-4-2010. 8. Rule 116 ofthe Rules, 1994 reads as under: "116. Classification of Stage Carriage Services.— (1) State carriage services shall be classified as Ordinary, Express and Deluxe. The Express and Deluxe services shall not ordinarily have stage at less than 50 Kms. apaft unless the permit granting authority specifically allows otherwise. (2) The State Transport Authority may , by general or special order, direct that vehicles plying as Express and Deluxe services shall be painted in such colours different from the colour of vehicles plying an ordinary seri/ice or may have such special markings, as the State Transport Authohty may specify and no Motor Vehicle than those operating as Express or De/uxe service shall be painted or carry marking in the manners so specified." 9. On bare perusal of the provisions of sub-rule (2) Rule 116 of the Rules, 1994, it is clear that any direction for painting of colour cannot be made under resolution or by a letter except by general or special order passed by the Authority. In the case on hand, it is clear that no order has been passed by the Authority, competent to do so, directing the bus operators to paint the vehicle in a particular colour. 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 3-6-2010 (Annexure - P/2) is without any authority of law and the same is hereby quashed. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge