^' M <r S • t Hiah Court of Chhattisaarh, Bilaspur WP (227) - f 2-° 9 / 2009 Petitioner, ^e^^'\f\ ..^ ^^ (^^e^. V^\ ^<5e>. .^/ ^^" pf^u" / Kulraj Singh, 36 Yrs., S/o Malkit Singh, Mahendra Travels, Pandri, Bus Stand, Raipur By General Attorney : Akashdeep Gill, 20 Yrs., S/o Lakhwant Singh Gill, Mahendra Travels, Pandri, Raipur Versus 1. Secretary, State Transport Authority, Raipur CG 2. Assistant Secretary, State Transport Authority, Raipur CG ^ Petition UnderArt. 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia .7^S^V ^F< ElLlIIiONER/ AI:'1::'1::LLANT BM'(, INTS HIQH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRnTPETmONJ227) N0.1209 OF 2009 Kulraj Singh Versus Secretary, State Transport Authority & Another And EEllllQN^R/ APl?l:::LL.ANt WRIT PETITION (227) N0.1071 OF 2009 Mathanlal James Versus ^EWONDENTS Secretary, State Transport Aythority & Another ^ Poel ior pronouncement of the orders on the _^, day of September, 2010 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^-^•^ ^^. i •^.^^ F^TII-IONER/ Al3|:»(:aLLANt REi:rpQNDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITIQN (227) N0.1209 OF 2009 KulraJSingh Versus Secretary, State Transport Authority & Another And E!JLf:|:[IOMER/ Al:'t:'l;il.L.ANT- WRIT PETITION (227) N0.1071 OF 2009 MathanlalJames Versus 13PONDENTS Secretary, State Transport Authority & Another (Writ petitions under Article 227 of the Consfitution of India) Sjngle Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Pr^selit:- Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. O R D E R (Delivered on this /<6 3ay of September, 2010) 1. W.P. (227) Nos.1209 & 1071 of 2009, involve the same question of law and common facts and as such they are being disposed of by •this common order. However, for the purpose of this order the faets, as mentioned in W.P.(227) Nos.1209 of 2009 are being referred. 2. In the instant petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of Ihdig, the petitioners challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 19-12-2008 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, (for short "the STAT") in app^als No.87 & 86 of 2008, respectively, whereby the appeals preferred by the petitioners against the orders dated 5-11-2008 were dismissed. .^^^,.-^ 's':0 3. The facts, in brief, are that in W.P.(227) Nos.1209 of 2009 the petitioner Was granted inter-state permit from Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) to Chandrapur (Maharashtra) via Dongargaon, Ghowki, Mohla, Manpur, Garhchirouli and return single trip by order dated 4-4-2008 on 26-7-2008 fora period of five years i.e. from ,1-8-2008 to 31-7-2013. Condition No.Softhe permit was that fhe , holder ofthe permit may be permitted toreplace the vehicle by any other vehicle ofthe same nature and capacity. 4, The petjtioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid condition ' to the STAT. The STAT by order dated 13-8-2008 (Annexure - P/3) clarified that after the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for s/io/f "the MV Act") came into force on 1-7-1989, Section 83 of the MV Act provides for removal of vehicle, which does not specify the word "same nature and capacity11. The word 'capacity' has been - omitted. Thus, the condition was modified to the extent that the holder of the permit may with the permission of the authority replace the vehicle by any other vehicle of the same nature. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for replacing of the vehicle under the permit which had the vehicle bearing registration NO.CG-04-E-9007 having seating capacity of 35 + 1 (for short "first vehiole") by another vehicle bearing registration No.CG-04-E-3931 haVing seating capacity of 27 + 1 (forshort "secondvehicle") under " fhe provisions of Section 83 of the MV Act. 6. The State Transport Authority by order dated 5-11-2008 rejected the application of the petitioner holding that the first vehicle was a deluxe vehicle having seating capacity of 35 + 1 and according to the registration book, the firstvehicle comes within the definition of 'heavy passenger motor vehicle', as the Gross Weight of the Vehicle (for short "the G.V.W.") was 15430 kgs. The second ^-:=:=--—--=—Y==: f 8; 9'. vehiole was having the G.V.W. of 11000 kgs. Thus, the same ,opmes within the definition of 'medium passenger motor vehicle'. The light motor vehicle means transport vehicle or omnibus, having the G.V.W. of either of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. The first vehiele, which was sought to be substituted by the second vehicle, was having 15430 kgs. The G.V.W. of the second vehicle was 11000 kgs. Accordingly, the application was rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the STAT. Learned Presiding Officer of the STAT having considered -allthe aspects of the matter came to the conclusion that same naturedoes not mean only passenger busor car. Same nature means the size of vehicle and weight. Even, if the seating capacity has been omitted, the first vehicle, which the petitioner wants to replace by the second vehicle, was not of the same nature, as not having the sameweight. The G.V.W. ofthe first vehicle was 15430 kgs. and the G.V.W. of the second vehicle was 11000 kgs. The first vehicle was in the nature of 'heavy passenger motor vehicle' 'and the second vehiclewas in the nature of 'medium passenger motor vehicle'. Accordingly, the STAT held that the order dated 5-11-2008 passed by the State Transport Authority, rejecting the application of the petitioner, was just and proper warranting no jnterference. Since fhe facts of two writ petitions are sgme except the route and bus numbers, it is not necessary to discuss the facts pf the other petitions. Even otherwise, this Court is required to decide the issue on law and not of the indisputable facts. Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner wanted to replace the first vehicle (deluxe) by second vehicle. Since the word 'capacity' has been €) pmitted, it was not necessary to have the same seating capacity i.e. 35 + 1, which was of the first vehicle. The second vehicle, for whioh the petitioner made an application to be replaced in place of the first vehicle, was a deluxe vehicle and only seating capacity ' was less than first vehicle. Thus, there cannot be any other ground to describe the nature of vehicle. The nature of both vehicles was the same, as they were passenger deluxe vehicles. Thus, the irn^ygned judgment and order passed by the STAT was not in accordance with law and the same deserves to be quashed. 10 Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,placed reliance upon the decision ofthe Karnataka High Court rendered in Yeshodhara Kadamba v. Karnatataka State Transport Appellate ^Tribunal1 and would submit that once the word 'capacity' has been omitted from the provision the nature of vehicle does not include the seating capacity of the vehicle. Shri Sharma also placed reliance upon the decisions ofthe Karnataka High Court rendered in Geeta B. Rao v. Secretary, Karnataka State Transport Authorit^ and Fahimunnisa v. Additional Secry., Regional Transport Authority3. 11 Oh the other hand, Shri Thakur, iearned Panel Lawyerappearing -for the State, would submit that the issuing authority is bound by the terms and conditions, as provided inthe inter-State agreement entered between the State of Chhattisgarh and State of Mgharashtra. The STAT by exercising its power rightly passed the impugned order. The seating capacity of the first vehicle was 35 + 1, for which the permit was issued and the petitioner wants to replace the said vehicle with second vehicie having capacity of 1ILR 1988 KAR 2447 2ll(1(to5)ACC407 31 (1&94)ACC129 ^s<&'" .. ; ^^^ : <-<,/;.1 ':^'::.':ty: 27 + 1, which may cause huge financial loss to the State exchequer and also cause inconvenience to the public atlarge. Eyen otherwise, as perthe provisions ofthe MVAct, the petitioner can replace the first vehicle by the second vehicle of the same nature that too with the prior permission of the authorities Goncerned. Nature of both vehicles was different, as the first viBhicle was in the nature of'heavy passenger motor vehicle' and ri the second vehicle was in the nature of 'medium passenger motor vehicle'. 12 l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 13 In case of first vehicles, the G.V.W. of the same was more than 15000 kgs. and in case of second vehicles, it was 11000 kgs. There seems to bea lot of difference. 14 The meaning of word 'nafure' has been defined in various diotionaries, which reads as under : '"1) Nature' - character, kind, orsort (Random House Webster's Coilege Dictionary). 2) 'Nature' - character, kind, orsort (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary). 3) 'Nature' - an individual element of character, disposition, etc. : a thing or person ofa particular quality or character, a kind, a sort, a class (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary - fifth edition)." 16; In Geeta B. Rao (supra), the Karnataka High Court observed as under: "9...... Firstly, on a plain understanding of the meaning of the Sectlon can mean, vehicle of similar type, i.e., a passenger vehicle. It only means that a Tourist vehicle cannot be replaced by a stage carriage or a /°"; ..•' goods-vehicle. In other words, the 'character' of vehicle cannot be changed. The meaning intended to be conveyed is that the characteristic of the vehicle should not be lost. 10....... The reasonable probability would be that the object of the Legislature was to consider only the nature of the vehicle and not the seating capacity of the vehicle. In any event, it is not the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the nature of the vehicle does not warrant the grant of permission under Section 59(2) oftheAct." 16. The decision ofthe Karnataka High Court rendered in Fahimunnisa (supra), referred by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is not relevant wherein the condition was imposed on the basisof certain resolution and the learned Single Judge (as he then was) h.eld that the grant of permit would be governed by the rules, not by any resolution passed by the authorities. 17. With great respect, in Geeta B. Rao (supra), the word 'same nature' has been given a very narrow definition. It is clarified that the capacity is not included within the definition of nature. 'Nature' means character, kind, or sort. Thus, the G.V.W. and kind of vehicle are important considerations for deciding the nature of vehicle. 18. The definitions of 'heavy passenger motor vehicle', 'light motor vehicle' and 'medium passenger motor vehicle' read as under: "2 (17) 'heavy passenger motor vehicle" means any public ser/ice vehicle or phvate semce vehicle or educational institution bus or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of any of which, or a motor car the unladen weight ofwhich, exceeds 12,000 kilograms; 2 (21) "light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road'roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceeded 7500 kilograms; 2 (24) "medium passenger motor vehicle" means any public sen/ice vehicle or private service vehicle, or educational institution but other than a motor oycle, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle;" 10 See. 59 (2) of 1939 Act up to 2-3-1970 reads as under: Sec. 59(2) "The holder of a permit may, with the permission of the authority by which the permit was granted, replace by another vehicle of the same nature and capacity any vehicle covered by the permit." 20 Section 59 (2) of 1939 Act after 2-3-1970 up to 1-7-1989 reads as under: "The holder of a permit may, with the permission of the authority by which the permlt was granted, replace any vehicle covered by the permit by anyother vehicle ofthesame nature". 21, The word 'capacity' has been omitted from the statute w.e.f. ''2-3-1970. The nature of the first & second vehicles are different, as aforestated. 22. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the both the writ petitions are being devoid of merit are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. 23 There shall be no order asto costs. Govvjl Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge