IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1584 of 2011 Date of Decision : November 17 , 2011 Arvind Chauhan son of Shri Uttam Singh Chauhan, Resident of Village & Post Office Padhar, Tehsil Padhar, District Mandi, H.P. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Transport) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. 2. Himachal Pradesh State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Shimla-2. 3. Regional Transport Authority, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. through its Secretary. 4. Shri Sharif Mohammad Akram son of Shri Ramjan Mohamad, resident of Village Dugrain, P.O. Kanaid, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. Respondents Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. G. R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Vikram Thakur and Mr. Naveen Awasthi, Advocates, for respondent No. 4. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the order dated 05.03.2011 passed by respondent No. 2 contained in Annexure P-12 may kindly be quashed after issuing a writ of certiorari. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to allow to the petitioner to ply his bus No. HP-76-6222 on its route Mandi to Shimla via Jukhala pursuant to the issuing of route permit dated 15.06.2010 contained in Annexure P-11, by issuing a writ of mandamus. (iii) That the respondent No. 3 may kindly be directed not to issue any permit in favour of the respondent No. 4 by issuing writ of mandamus. (iv) That the respondents may kindly be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. (v) That the cost of the petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner. (vi) Any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.” 2. Facts are not in dispute. Vehicle (Bus No. HP 32-3786) was owned by Sh. Sharif Mohammad. Certain transactions were entered into between Sh. Sharif Mohammad and Sh. Arvind Chauhan with regard to the sale/purchase of the bus. It is also not in dispute that 3 vehicle in question was ultimately sold by the Regional Transport Authority in a public auction and new vehicle purchased by the petitioner. It is also evident from the record that Sh. Sharif Mohammad filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, H.P. and Sh. Arvind Chauhan filed a civil suit for damages which stands decreed by the Court having competent jurisdiction. According to the petitioner since the bus was sold to him by Sh. Sharif Mohammad, he applied for transfer of route permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Mandi in his favour. This application was moved way back in the year 2005/2007 itself. The Regional Transport Authority, in terms of decision taken on 10.5.2010 transferred the permit in favour of Sh. Arvind Chauhan. Record reveals that till that time, permit continued to be in name of Sh. Sharif Mohammad. Each party claims that dues were paid by them but however the State admits that amount was paid by the petitioner. Aggrieved of the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Sh. Sharif Mohammad filed appeal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘Act’) before the State Appellate Tribunal and in terms of impugned order dated 5.3.2011 the same was allowed holding that transfer of permit in the name of Sh. Arvind Chauhan is illegal. 3. Sections 82 and 83 of the Act reads as under:- “82. Transfer of permit. – (1) Save as provided in sub- section (2), a permit shall not be transferable from one person to another except with the permission of the 4 transport authority which granted the permit and shall not, without such permission, operate to confer on any person to whom a vehicle covered by the permit is transferred any right to use that vehicle in the manner authorized by the permit. (2) Where the holder of a permit dies, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle covered by the permit may, for a period of three months, use the permit as if it had been granted to himself; Provided that such person has, within thirty days of the death of the holder, informed the transport authority which granted the permit of the death of the holder and of his own intention to use the permit: Provided further that no permit shall be so used after the date on which it would have ceased to be effective without renewal in the hands of the deceased holder. (3) The transport authority may, on application made to it within three months of the death of the holder of a permit, transfer the permit to the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicles covered by the permit: Provided that the Transport Authority may entertain an application made after the expiry of the said period of three months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified.” “83. Replacement of vehicles. – The holder of a permit may, with the permission of the authority by which the permit was granted, replace any vehicle covered by the permit by any other vehicle of the same nature.” 4. It is quite apparent that none of the conditions stipulated under the Act are applicable qua the present petitioner and as such Regional Transport Authority could not have entertained petitioner’s request for grant of route permit in his favour. 5 5. It is not the case of petitioner that he had independently applied for the route permit and that Regional Transport Authority had considered such application and taken a decision thereon. Insofar as payment of taxes is concerned it is always open for the petitioner to recover the same from the respondent, in accordance with law. Simply because petitioner has been paying the dues for route permit in the name of Sh. Sharif Mohamad by itself would not make the petitioner eligible and entitled for transfer of permit in his name. Sections 82 and 83 of the Act do not envisage such situation. That apart, Rule 81 of the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1999 clearly stipulates that transfer by consent can be made only on a joint application submitted in the prescribed form-XXXVII. Now in the instant case there is no joint application. It is urged by Mr. G. R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioner that application was submitted by the petitioner but the respondents in the petition filed before the Consumer Form had stated that they had no objection to the same. Now this by itself would not meet the requirement of law. The only mode and method of transfer of route permit and not the vehicle is by joint application in accordance with the Act and the prevalent Rules. It is claimed that vehicle in question was released in favour of the petitioner by the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar. The Appellate Authority has dealt with this aspect of the matter and rightly rejected the petitioner’s contention. Release of vehicle in favour of the petitioner would also not entitled him to get the route permit transferred in his name as 6 there is dispute with regard to the transfer of the vehicle and objection of the original owner is with regard to transfer of route permit and not the vehicle. Record does not reveal any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Appellate Authority. 6. Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. November 17 , 2011 (PK)