Dharmendra Singh and Others vs Regional Transport Authority,Meerut

R. A. Sharma, J.—Petitioners are holding stage carriage permits MuzaffirnagarBhopatMornaBijnor and allied route hereinafter referred to as the route) and they are plying their vehicles on it accordingly. They applied for and were granted permission by Regional Transport Authority, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as R. T. A.) vide its resolution, dated 2271992, to keep in reserve extra vehicles under their stage carriage permits in order to maintain the service on the route with three conditions : viz. (1) extra vehicle can be plied on the route in two contingencies only, namely, (1) when the regular vehicle covered under the permit goes out of operation due to break down or necessity for repair ; and (b) when it is required to carry passengers on special occasions, such as marriage, Mela, religious gathering (2) the operators will pay for reserve vehicle 75 per cent of the passenger tax which is paid for the regular bus on ad hoc basis ; and (3) a regular checking of these vehicles. Being aggrieved by these conditions the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

While entertaining the writ petition this Court on 2491992 granted a month''s time to the learned Standing Counsel to file counteraffidavit and meanwhile the operation on the impugned condition was stayed. However, counteraffidavit was not filed by the learned Standing Counsel, although the case remained pending for more than two years in this Court. On 1811995 this Court gi anted time to learned Standing Counsel till next date of listing with the observation that no further time shall be granted. In spite of stop order the counteraffidavit has not been filed. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.

No exception can be taken conditions No. 1 and 3, because Section 70(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) makes provision for keeping vehicle in reserve under a permit "to maintain the service and to provide for special occasions". But it is not possible to sustain the condition No. 2.

Under the U. P. Moter Gadi Yatrikar Adhiniyam every operator hat to pay tax on the passengers carried by a stage carriage at the rate prescribed therein. The Yatrikar Adhiniyam and the rules framed thereunder also give option to an operator to pay passenger tax in lump sum. This Act provides for assessment and reassessment of the tax. Under this Act the powers regarding assessment, reassessment, realisation, recovery of the tax and all matters in connection therewith have been conferred on the Taxation Officer. The jurisdiction under this Act has not been conferred on R. T. A. It does not come in the picture in the matter of fixation and realisation of the passenger tax although, subject to the Rules that may be framed, it is competent to it to make payment of the tax, as the condition of the permit. But that does not give any right to it to determine the tax which has to be paid by a vehicle operating either as regular or as reserve vehicle under a permit. Neither probability of the use of the reserve vehicle in contravention of the condition of the permit nor the possibility of concealment of the tax can confer any jurisdiction on the R. T. A. to fix the amount of passenger tax which is to be paid for reserve vehicle under a stage carriage permit. If the R. T. A. was apprehending abuse of the reserve vehicle it was open to it to refuse to grant permission for keeping the reserve vehicle under permit. But it is not open to it to impose a condition which is outside its authority. Condition No. 2, as such, has to be struck down.

For the reasons given above, this writ petition is allowed with costs. Condition No. 2 of the resolution of the R. T. A., dated 2271992 (Annexure1 to the writ petition) is quashed.