Bharat Motor Service vs State Transport Authority and Others

G.C. Bharuka, J.—The Petitioner, which is a partnership firm carrying on business as a transport operator, is aggrieved by the order dated 15-5-1993 (Annexure-7) passed by the Respondent State Transport Authority by which private Respondent Mehta Prem Nath has been granted a permit for operating a stage carriage on the inter-State route Ranchi to Rourkela via Kolebira.

The Petitioner is the holder of a permit for operating a stage carriage on the route Ranchi to Rengari via Kolebira Simdega. The private Respondent was holding a permanent permit on the regional route Ranchi to Kolebira via Khunti (Annexure 2). This was to expire in 1994 but on 31-5-1993 he surrendered the same because he was granted a permanent permit for the inter State Route referred to above for the period 5-6-1993 to 4-6-1998 (Annexure 8) pursuant to the impugned order as contained in Annexure 7.

It is a matter of record that pursuant to an agreement between the authorities of the Stale of Bihar and Orissa and after observing all the necessary formalities as contemplated u/s 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter the Old Act only), the inter State route in question was duty notified in the extraordinary issue of Bihar Gazette bearing No. 253 dated 11th May, 1988 (Annexure B to the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 3), Para 5 of the said notification provided that the regional route Ranchi-Kolebira has been decided to be extended to Rourkela and the motor vehicles of Bihar will operate everyday on the route on the basis of permit granted by the State Transport Authority, Bihar. In the notification it was noticed that only 24 K.Ms. of the route lies in Orissa area.

As stated above, the private Respondent was operating a bus on the route Ranchi to Kolebira on a valid permit. He, before the aforesaid final publication of the inter State route in question, filed an application before the Transport Authority for extension of his route upto Rourkela. But since the same was not being disposed of, he filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 5089 of 1987 which was disposed of on 24th of February, 1988, (Annexure C to the counter affidavit) by which it was directed that the application of the private Respondent should be disposed of within one month. Accordingly the Transport Authority after due consideration rejected the same, inter alia, on the ground that so far the inter State route is concerned, it was yet to be notified and the existing route on which the private Respondent was operating can not be extended beyond 24 K.Ms.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the private Respondent filed a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which was disposed of on 16-9-1992 (Annexure-4) with an observation that if he files a fresh application for grant of permit for the route in question the same may be considered in accordance with law. Accordingly, the private Respondent filed the desired application, inpursuance whereof, the impugned order dated 15-5-1993 has been passed and the permit (Annexure 8) has been issued to the private Respondent.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has drawn our attention to Clause (b) to the proviso to Section 72(2)(xxii) and to the second proviso to Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter the new Act only), which are being quoted hereunder:

72(2) The Regional Transport Authority, if it decided to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified description and may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely.

(xxii) that the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not less than one month.

(a) vary the conditions of the permit;

(b) attach to the permit further conditions

Provided that the conditions specified in pursuance of Clause (i) shall not be varied so as to alter the distance covered by the original route by more than 24 Kilometres, and any variation within such limits shall be made only after Regional 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 any part thereof;

80(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 a route to increase the frequency of the service so provided without any increase in the number of vehicles:

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 kilometres;

(ii) in the case of extension, the distance covered by extension shall not exceed twenty four Kilometres 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.

By referring to the above provisions of the new Act learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the decision to grant permit to the private Respondent for the inter State route in question was impermissible in law since this merely tantamount to extension of his regional permit for a distance exceeding 24 Kilometres, to which there is a statutory bar in view of the provisions referred to above.

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the private Respondent as well as for the State, by referring to the various documents and orders, as referred to above, have submitted that it is not a case of extension of any existing route rather in the present case a fresh permit has been granted on the basis of a duly made application in this regard

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that, as a matter of fact, the private Respondent has been granted a new permit on a new inter State route agreed to by the transport authorities of Bihar and Orissa States as notified in the Bihar Gazette (Annexure-R). Further it is also a matter of record that the application of the private Respondent for grant of a new permit was considered as per the statutory provisions after the same was filed in accordance with the directions of the Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 16.9.92 (Annexure 4).

In the above view of the matter, I have no hesitation in holding that the private Respondent has not been favoured by alteration of his permit by any extension of route beyond permissible limits. On the contrary it has to be held that both in law and on facts, the private Respondent has been granted a new permit on the inter-State route in question.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the writ application is without any substance and is being accordingly dismissed, but with no orders as to cost.

N.S. Rao, J.

I agree.