^' . P. N0. 508? OF 2004 ^ PETITIONER Ali Raza, S/o Shri Abdul Azia Aged about 52 Years, Prop. Rajdhani Traveis, Normal School Road, Bilaspur, Tah.& Distt Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) VE RS U S ,€^^ /^M^ ) -•••' •.'V?-' ^••T ^.-•^"^ ^' (^y ^**' ^y^y '^^ -f^~\. 1. ^Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG) ^. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG) 3. Abdul Hakim, S/o Shri Hamid " Ali, aged about 39 years, Kharasia Road, Ambikapur, Distt Surguja [Chhattisgarh] /A. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chattisgarh, Raipur ^ - WFUT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE_226__Q£_THE CONSTZTUTION OF INDSA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NA7URE CERTIORARI. MANDAMUS .A •"' <*%''» ft'-. PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DZREC7XONS, ORDER OR OR^ERS: co •V\t / Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh &others •th •T. S61-— L.C. Bhadoo Judge "^-e-zavi tFSMfS !s:i m la ••& .'m' "•^.•.'^@? "?y^'f'sss^'"^^^^^!^^ s';3F^sms^'sf;' ^s&fssss^ elof:5 HIGiH CQURT OFJiUDIGATURE T BrLASPUR. CHHATTISQARH WritPetition N0.5088 of 2004 Ali Raza - Versus - -l^^ ^- Regional Transpqrt Authority, Chhatfisg:arh & ^ 1 ..;. :• . •: ' '., ' • '. : '•'"•' - : • •"' ' ': ' /: .•':'••.•:^''.:' . •.•:- :': : ' ; ; : .•: :';• Rre.sent:'.-. ".^ \ :.\ '" : '' •~.' .,: •i::;.:'. ' ^ ' • • •..:: :'";; Mr. Sanjay Kumar ^gaFwali'Advocate: Eor the petitioneri ^l Mr. 'Y.S. :Th akur,, Gaj^t. A^voc.ate:, : ' F®:cTesponderit N'O.II: &\:2 :iVIr, B.K.^Rawat.-AdyQcate: • ^.:. '''; Fw Np.(4 ,"^ O R,.BE;1-R-^;^','-' : . ;: •• - .:,:: \: :(eias:sed'on;s^iA !3'u'stv:20S5'): :, • '.: ;1'' U: ¥i 1. The petition®r)i|a|S^p|referred:%is:.wrjf;petiti&n::under^ of the.Constitufiisfl .offJndia^u;estTplffiing.the 1^^ and c0rre:ctnes|s|of^oirder datecii1}8..8 i.20i03 plassed^by^r^! N o .1 - R e gj 6 n a !,K Tr a n s port ^ ] ftu fcKority,. C h.h att is g a rh;,i wherebyTespQ.n:Ssnt|N:o.:1ti^gfantB<l:,aT-egu[ar.'stage^ permit to.respGjrjdent No;3,o;re;lhe?rj6% b a ck ! anQ- : al:so^: : tKle '.oTder^ jdat.ed^;' :?1:8;. 1.|1 l.i2i0'04 p as^e:3' :|^ r6sponde.nt^ :; :|No.4-Stat®.,;i^na<spffiFt[' Ghh;attiisgarh,,:j|;tpiaipiU:r-'.:[cpiffiT|r|mmg,:;':the^:^ \'i. '• • • ' ''s ;';- . ' respondent N;O!;}^. 'l . 2, Brief facts.' l^a;clin'g^ to: •:f[liffig^\of^ itljits^' writ FeaR:ondenf.^N'o|.3.!ltie|re'ih ;a •;.^'t'' :'^'. :'" :! :•'•.•'•':.''••' c a rri a g e ^.errn:iti:oni t h e' inwjting ,®Bject!^n|s'^w»s;. ;1^112.200:^;:.Th:e,rsatt:er.:'tm 25 ..3. 2B103,1;M iwh::ieih^Hje ^pi||ietf,;:ifGr^:gTa:n|t|;Q:1: :roiEi'J;e^:.;81|la;?|:tUr-j^tlc Ratanpur,'PaJi,|.;t<at^ora,;1'a<r&j'S£Udjaiipu^^u^ 11'j-ibHrt IHJi ion 'la'r^.::; a: ir8.g:tf:)S't'|; stal ftmbjkjaput'il 19 w af1six©|dr'^oin''?•'t.h'el ::iffi|otice.ib|olairjdg.| ^-B-.! ^jgg:];i|e||Nni^asiifee:ptl^r^eS:rj fcefere';th:;^^Regjo^n,a:l;i|1'rareSiRCit|%ujB)» ||yt^h'h^ttis^ :]p||J!tii|anj|:i-;fiieJFarnja|£|weilt.ajg|jonje?jp||t It il: !<um^r.^i g1it^ll^^^ts;^|t^|^ia||||)^|TO 1::;: '^w :->1;iu! w •ii ;1 ;;'• tWil ;;;:'^^^;}^ Page 2 of5 ^'\ A Bilaspur to Balco, had filed their objections. The objection of said Shiv Kumr Singh was regarding timings on the ground that his vehicle's departure time from Bilaspur is 18.45 pm, whereas, proposed timing of the applicant is 18.25 pm, thus, there is only 20 minutes difference between the two and another objection was that in both the permits 85 km route is common, therefore, he will suffer financial loss. The objections raised by said Shiv Kumar Singh was rejected by respondent No.1 on the groundthat permit ofthe Objector is for Bilaspur to Balco, whereas, ihe applicant has applied for permit from Bilaspur to Ambikapur. A sjmilar objection was raised by the petitioner herein that departure timing of the petitioner's vehicle from Ambikapur is 5.00 am, whereas, the applicant has proposed the departure time from Ambikapur as 4.25 am, which is 35 minutes ahead ofthe petitioner's timing and on account of :his narrow gap betvi/een the two, he wil! also suffer financial loss. This objection was also rejected by She authority on the ground that difference between the two i.s 35 minutes, therefore, objection is not vaiid and 35 minutes difference between two permits is sufficient. Aggrieved by the order of respondent No.1 the petitioner herein preferred a re'/ision petition before respondent No.4 and ths same was dismissed by respondent No.4 vide impugned order datsd 18.11.2004. 3. I have heard the leamed counsel for the parties. 4. Shri Sanjay K Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner argued Shat the permit has been granted to respondent No.3 in vioiation of Sections 70, 71 S 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988") and the authorities have not considered the speed ofvehicle, which is a relevant factor for consideration of a permit. He further argued that the authorities have also not considered the eiement of public interest andthat the time gap between the two permits is so smail that it will be uneconomica! to the petitioner and it is !v? not going toserve ths public interest also. 5. On the other hand, Shri B.K.Rawat, counsel for respondent 'No.3 submitted that the permit was granted to respondent No.3 Page 3 of5 •• -'l ...••'! after complying with the provisions of Sections 70, 71 & 72 of the Act of 1988 and as far as She question regarding consideration of speed is concerned, the petitioner did not raise this objectlon before the Regionai Transport Authority or State Transport Appellate Tribuna!, therefore, it cannot be raised under a vi/rit jurisdiction for the first t'me. He further submitted that as far as time-gap is concerned, respondent No.1 after considering the reievant factors, traffic etc on the route has granted the psrmit, therefore, he submits that ths writ petitio," is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. aving heard learned counse! for ie record. e parties, 1 have perused It is true that objection regarding non-consideration of speed of vehicle was not raised by the petitioner before any authority and it is being raised for the first Sime, thereftfre, it cannot be allowed. The pstitioner ought to have raised this objection before respondentNo.1 in order to consider the objection taking into consideration the ground situation. Even otherwise, as far as thespeed of vehicle is concerned, the permit, which has been granted to respondent No.3, and timings are io'eniica! to the petitioner's permit, therefore, it cannot be said that the speed factor has not been taken into consideratlon by the Now coming to the question that time-gap between She petitioner's permit & respondent No.S's permit is oniy 35 minutes, as such same will be uneconomicai for the petitioner. This factor has a!so been considered by both the authorities, Sherefore, 1 do not find any substance in Shis count also and as such, the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner reported in AiR 1999 Madhya Pradesh 1 between Vlvek Dwivedi and another V Prem Narain and others is of no help to the petitioner, for the reason that in this judgment it has been held tllat "...the transport aitttiority has to considerthe nesd having regard to the passsngar traffic 'befween the two places. The sdequate transport facili'ties, if eny, between the intermediate s^ations should not be regarded as conclusive of V7 Page4 ^5 the matter.and the Regiona! Transport Authonty has to consider at the time of fixjng the tims schedule the interests of the travelling public in relation to the sntirs route bstween the two terminii. The timings are given to faciiitate the traveilors and not for favouring one operator at the expense of the other. Speed limit is onty one of the factors for fixing the time table and the Regi'ona! Transport Authority must conssder fhe time table filad by ail the affected operators.' In the present case, before the RTA or STAT no such point was raised by the petitioner that the time scheduie has been fixed without faking into consideration the facility to the traveliers, the only objeetion of the petitioner was that the time-gap betv/een the two is so small and it will be uneconomical for the petitioner, Vi/hereas, in the authority cited by counsel for the petitloner the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has stressed on the point that time table has So be fixed with reference to the object of seeing the interests of the general pubiic and cannot be treated as confined to the competmg interests of the permit hoiders, but in She present case, the petitioner has not raised the objection to the effect that the timing was not in ^he interest of the general public. As such, there is no m'aterial on record which indieates or through which an inference can be drawn that while fixing the timings the general public interest was not taken into consideration. In the matter of Mithilesh Qarg stc. etc. and others etc. etc. reported in AIR 1992 the Shree Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the provision.s of amended Act of 1988 observed that " ...the procedure for grant of permit under tha new Acf 'nas heen SiberaHzed to such an exienS that an intended operator can geta permit for asking srrespective of the niimber of operators a/resdy in the fietd." The Court a!so held that "...more operators mean^healthy competition and efficient transport system. Overcrowded buses, pessengers standing in the aisle, persons dinging to the bus-doors and even sitiing on the roof-top are some of the common sights in this country. It ss therefore, necessary that there shouid be plenty of operators on ev'ery route to provide ampie chosca to the commuter-public to boaro' :Page5 of5: ? mm li:i;! ^ 'ljihaFi/ •fhe vehicle of their choice and yatronize the operatof who is .providing ths besi seryice. Even ottsen/fise the libera! poSicy is iiksSy to.help ini.the.slifninaffon.of corruption anci favouritism in the pfocessofgraref»ngpe/'mfts."AftsrcomingintoeffeGtoftfte Ac;t of 1988 the paramount consideration forlthe\au:tffQnty islto ensu re th e effjcie nt a;n d ; c o nyen ient ,tran sp prt s ervicei •R)r tltfi: general public and this; point was nev&r i^ised byt before bofh-the authorities.th attfie^timing fixedby, respon N o.1 whi'le gra|nting permit'to Fespen^ent No,3 the:ji,nf!erast:,Df generai publ|iiel has not bei&n;;ftak8n. into eonsidsratic!?n, i'ttie; petitioner's: Qyjeetinn: thrsughsM^was' ttiat ,time?^gap;^^ minutes b^twgen the petitiOFter^ piermit an.d^lre permit wilt &8'jdetBimentalrit» sarne is.une&onomical, whjch.has a;fFeady been'a'nswered^bif tt® •both theauth.oirities. , : ' -: '/.;:'::; ! 10.Tn view of thelforfigoingdilsfiyssiori,4hepetition$rhasn6i^ able to makellbut a case )for;.ititeFfefence of^his Ceurt'^ Article :226/227 of!:the ConstitWQn oflndiaan,d.iti::cannBt:ibe held ;that th&i impugnedf.BrdeFS ihaye^^^^ b^ auth orities withouti faKing^Jntxi^cyonlsicieratlicinLth-e rei'6van|'fac!ts; •KMi1.^ necessary for;[:granf of-a:;^:erm^t. n'h.e :pe!fittoner .has?no1;:;teisn^ abl®to;point|a|n'y: il|egalj(ybOF|matena'l irFegulari re:sp6nyent,f'(c),.!1,S 4 whi1^ oi-d^rs. ;|^ hais;'ncfeforGe same is Eiabls, Boi1!' ll.In the result^!' disrnissedanjd! it.is, dismissed L.C. Bhadoo Judge I.IIIW5