1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR The State Transport Authority & Anr. Vs. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Anr. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3662/2008) ### Date of Order :- 31.08.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.K. Verma, for the petitioners. Mr.Satish Khandelwal for Mr.S.K. Ajmera, for the respondents. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.02.2008, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ('the learned Tribunal', for short), whereby the learned Tribunal has quashed and set aside the order dated 08.01.2008 passed by the Regional Transport Authority. The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Asha Chauradia, the respondent No.2, was a permit holder for vehicle bearing No.MP-14/K-4719. The said vehicle was running from Ramganj Mandi to Kota. The said route was duly sanctioned by the transport authority vide permit No.3633/Kota/Stage/2007. The said permit was valid till 17.10.2012. On 08.01.2008, Smt. Asha Chauradia moved an application before the Regional Transport Authority for extension of the route from Ramganj Mandi to village Undawa. She sought an extension of the route for a distance of eleven 2 kilometers. However, vide order dated 08.01.2008, the Regional Transport Authority rejected the said application. Since she was aggrieved by the said order, she filed an appeal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act', for short) before the learned Tribunal. Vide order dated 25.02.2008, the learned Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 08.01.2008. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. K. Verma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that under Section 80 (3) of the Act, a person can apply for the inclusion of a new route or routes, or a new area, or for altering the route or routes, or area covered by a permit already issued to him/her. However, in case the Transport Authority is satisfied that such a inclusion would not be convenient to the public, or it is not expedient to grant a separate permit, or to extend any part of the permit, it may refuse to do so. Therefore, the Transport authority was within its jurisdiction to reject the application filed by Smt. Chauradia. Moreover, according to the notification dated 11.10.2006, the Government had declared that the routes of “the Sub-Urban Routes” would not be combined with other routes and in case any extension of a new area was sought, the permit for the same would not be given. The route for which Smt. Chauradia was seeking an extension falls within the definition of “Sub- Urban Routes”. Therefore, the Transport Authority was justified 3 in rejecting her application in light of the Notification dated 11.10.2006. According to the learned counsel, the said notification has escaped the notice of the learned Tribunal. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable. On the other hand, Mr. Satish Khandelwal, the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that according to the proviso to Section 80(3) of the Act, the application could be rejected only when the Transport Authority is satisfied that it will be inconvenient to the public if the permit for the extended area were granted. However, no such satisfaction of the Transport Authority is revealed in the order dated 08.01.2008. The only reason given by the Transport Authority for rejecting the application is that according to the circulars dated 11.10.2006 & 03.07.2007, a permit could not be extended on a route linking Sub-Urban Routes with any other route. Secondly, a notification cannot curtail the parental Act. According to Section 80(3) of the Act, a person is entitled to get the extension upto twenty-four kilometers. Since Smt. Chauradia was merely asking for an extension of eleven kilometers, she was entitled to the permit being granted to her. Once the parental Act permits the extension upto twenty-four kilometers, the notification cannot dilute Section 80(3) of the Act. Therefore, the notification could not be the basis for rejecting her application. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is legally sustainable. 4 Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Section 80 of the Act is as under :- 80. Procedure in applying for and granting permits.- (1) An application for a permit of any kind may be made at any time. (2) A Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 66 shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under this Act : Provided that the Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 66 may summarily refuse the application if the grant of any permit in accordance with the application would have the effect of increasing the number of stage carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 71 or of contract carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 74 : Provided further that where a Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 66 refuses an application for the grant of a permit of any kind under this Act, it shall give to the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal of the same and an opportunity of being heard in the matter. (3) An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, or in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit : Provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat an application made by the holder of stage carriage permit who provides the only service on any route to increase the frequency of the service so provided without any increase in the number of vehicles : 5 Provided further that, - (i) In the case of variation, the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed twenty-four kilometers; (ii) in the case of extension, the distance covered by extension shall not exceed twenty-four kilometers from the termini, and any such variation or extension within such limits shall be made only after the transport authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof. (4) A Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 66 may, before such date as may be specified by it in this behalf, replace any permit granted by it before the said date by a fresh permit conforming to the provisions of section 72 or section 74 or section 76 or section 79, as the case may be, and the fresh permit shall be valid for the same route or routes or the same area for which the replaced permit was valid : Provided that no condition other than a condition which was already attached to the replaced permit or which could have been attached thereto under the law in force when that permit was granted shall be attached to the fresh permit except with the consent in writing of the holder of the permit. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 81, a permit issued under the provisions of sub-section (4) shall be effective without renewal for the remainder of the period during which the replaced permit would have been so effective. A bare perusal of the provision clearly reveals that an application for permit can be made by a person at any time. According to Sub-clause (2), the Regional Transport Authority ordinarily shall not refuse to grant the permit. The Regional Transport Authority can, however, refuse to grant the permit in case the permission has the effect of increasing the number of 6 stage carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 71, or of contract carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 74. According to sub-clause (3), a permit holder is entitled to request the inclusion of a new route or routes, or a new area, or for altering the route or routes, or area covered by a permit; such a request shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit. However, the second proviso to sub- clause (3) clearly provides that such an application need not be treated as a grant of a new permit in case the distance covered by the variation does not exceed twenty-four kilometers. Furthermore, second proviso lays down that such a permission can be granted if the Transport Authority were satisfied that such variation would serve the convenience of the public. Therefore, according to the sub-clause (3) of Section 80 of the Act, while a permit holder is entitled to seek variation or alteration in the distance covered by a route, the Transport Authority is empowered to refuse the permit only on the ground if it is convinced that such a grant of permit would cause inconvenience to the public. Hence, the right of consideration, the right to be granted the permission has been bestowed upon a permit holder. The power to refuse, on the other hand, is a limited one. The use of the expression, “the Transport Authority is satisfied”, clearly shows that the satisfaction must be writ large in the order refusing the permission. 7 Notwithstanding, the rights bestowed by Section 80 of the Act, notwithstanding, the limited scope for refusal under Section 80(3), the second proviso has been limited by the Circular dated 11.10.2006. The said Circular has reduced the right of consideration and the right to grant of permission and has increased the power of refusal. According to the said circular, no permission is to be given if the existing route is being connected with “the Sub-Urban Routes”. It is, indeed, trite to state that any circular, being part of delegated legislation, cannot dilute or override a provision of the parental Act. Therefore, circular dated 11.10.2006 cannot dilute the right to be granted permission by laying down a new ground for refusal of the permission. Since the legal position is well settled, the learned Appellate Tribunal was certainly justified in ignoring the circular dated 11.10.2006 and in applying the provision of Section 80(3) of the Act. The order dated 08.01.2008 passed by the Regional Transport Authority rejecting the petitioner's application merely mentions the existence of circulars dated 11.10.2006 & 03.07.2007; it does not utter a word about the satisfaction of the Regional Transport Authority. Section 80(3) of the Act requires that the Regional Transport Authority should be “satisfied” that the grant of permit would cause inconvenience to the public. Even before this Court, the State has not pleaded that in case the petitioners were permitted to ply the vehicle for 8 a further distance of eleven kilometers, such a plying would cause inconvenience to the public at large. Moreover, the order dated 08.01.2008 does not contain any such satisfaction. Therefore, the learned Appellate Tribunal was justified in quashing and setting aside the order dated 08.01.2008. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki