Ghanshyam Rathore vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal Department and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Both the writ petitions arise from the same facts and the authority below has allowed the revision filed by the respondent No. 5, by common order dated 10-8-2010 (Annexure P-1) passed in Revision Nos. 132 and 133 of 2009. Thus, both the writ petitions are being considered and disposed of by this common order. The indisputable facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner made an application u/s 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act, 1988'') for grant of permanent stage carriage permit on the bus route from Jamnipali to Jashpur, via Korba, Balco, Dharamjaigarh, Patthalgaon, Bagbahar, Pandripani, single trip daily and vice versa, before the Regional Transport Authority (for short ''the RTA''), Bilaspur. The respondent No. 5 objected the application on the ground that the distance of the route falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Ambikapur. Thus, the respondent No. 2 has no authority to entertain the application for grant of bus permit. The application of the petitioner as well as the objections of the respondent No. 5 were considered and the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, passed the order granting permit under the signature of RTA, Ambikapur. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 5 filed a revision before the respondent No. 1, i.e., the State Transport Appellate Tribunal challenging the order dated 30-6-2009 (Annexure P-2). The question raised by the respondent No. 5 before the Tribunal was that the route from Jashpur to Jamnipali was not notified. The route was from Patthalgaon to Jamnipali and Patthalgaon to Jashpur, separately. The objection of the respondent No. 5 was rejected by the Tribunal. The respondent No. 1 held that the route from Jashpur to Jamnipali, via Patthalgaon, Dharamjaigarh, Ghati, Rajgamar, Balco, Korba, vide notification dated 14-6-2004 at serial No. 318.

On the second question raised before the Tribunal that the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for grant of bus permit on the above stated route for single trip as before making the application by the petitioner on 11-2-2009, the Regional Transport Authority, Ambikapur was notified on 30-1-2009 Thus, the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur had no jurisdiction to consider and grant regular permit for the route Jamnipali to Jashpur.

The respondent No. 1-Tribunal, after having examined the facts held that the certificate granted by the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department clearly indicates that the distance from Jashpur to Patthalgaon is 126 k.m. and from Jamnipali to Patthalgaon, it is 123 k.m. Admittedly, under the provisions of Section 69(1) of the Act, 1988, the authority having major portion of the proposed route alone has competence to entertain application for grant of permit. The Tribunal, having accepted the objection of the respondent N. 5, quashed the order dated 30-6-2009 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, under the signature of RTA, Ambikapur. Thus, this petition.

The main contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No. 5 has not raised objection with regard to jurisdiction of the RTA, Bilaspur, except the timing of the bus route, before the RTA. Thus, the respondent No. 1 has wrongly permitted the respondent No. 5 to raise the issue for the first time before the Tribunal. Other contentions of learned Counsel for the petitioner are that firstly, the petitioner was not aware of the opening of the office of RTA, Surguja Division at Ambikapur and secondly, the distance was almost equal as one route was 123 k.m. and other was 126 k.m. Thus, the RTA, Bilaspur has full authority to entertain the application. Thirdly, the final order was passed by the RTA, Ambikapur. Thus, there is no jurisdictional error.

On the other hand, Shri Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the State and Shri Sudeep Johari with Shri Ansul R. Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 would submit in support of the impugned order dated 10-8-2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 1.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

Section 69 of the Act, 1988 reads as under :-

General provisions as to applications for permits.-- (1) Every application for a permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles :

Provided that if it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles in two or more regions lying within the same State, the application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies, and in case the portion of the proposed route or area in each of the regions is approximately equal, to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles :

Provided further that if it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicle in two or more regions lying in different States, the application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the applicant resides or has his principal place of business.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that in the case of any vehicle or vehicles proposed to be used in two or more regions lying in different States, the application under that subsection shall be made to the State Transport Authority of the region in which the applicant resides or has his principal place of business.

The first Proviso to Section 69 provides that the application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which a major portion of the proposed route or area lies, and in case the portion of the proposed route or area in each of the regions is approximately equal, to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles. No facts have been pleaded with regard to keeping of the vehicle or vehicles conferring jurisdiction on the RTA, Bilaspur.

Having regard to the distance as recorded by the respondent No. 1, admittedly, major portion of the route falls within the region of RTA, Ambikapur as no case has been made out that though, the routs were almost equal, but whether the vehicle was kept by the petitioner in Bilaspur, is neither considered nor decided. The contention of the petitioner that though the application was made before the RTA, Bilaspur, however, the final order was passed by the RTA, Ambikapur, is noticed to be rejected. In such case, where RTA, Ambikapur was already in existence, the application of the petitioner ought to have been returned back to the petitioner at the threshold to make application before the RTA, Ambikapur. It is found that the application of the petitioner was considered by the RTA, Bilaspur and only final order was passed under authority of the RTA, Ambikapur, as he was holding the additional charge of the RTA, Ambikapur also.

On perusal of the documents, it appears that the respondent No. 5 has raised the objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction for the first time before the respondent No. 1 and no such objection was raised before the RTA, Bilaspur. The respondent No. 1, without examining the said fact, has allowed the revision filed by the respondent No. 5.

The reliance of the petitioner on D. Papiah Vs. Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Others, wherein it has been held that the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority to grant inter-regional permit depends on the existing area of motorable roads when an application for permit is made. There is no dispute about the well-settled principle of law as observed in D. Papiah (supra).

Further reliance of the petitioner on Mithilesh Garg, Vs. Union of India and others etc. etc., 3, in support of his contention that the objection of the respondent No. 5 should not have been considered by the RTA, Bilaspur, while granting permit as the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the right of existing operators to file objection and the provision of the Act to impose limit on the number of permit, have been taken away under the new Act. There is no quarrel on the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg (supra).

For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, it appears that the respondent No. 1-Tribunal has not considered all the facts and law properly while allowing the revision filed by the respondent No. 5. Under Proviso to Section 69(1) of the Act, 1988, whether the petitioner was proposing to keep his vehicle or vehicles within the regional jurisdiction of the RTA, Bilaspur to confer jurisdiction on RTA, Bilaspur, was not considered. Thus, the impugned revisional order dated 10-8-2010 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to consider the case afresh on the materials which are necessary for adjudication of the dispute as aforestated, after applying the law properly.

It is made clear that observations, if any, made hereinabove, may not be taken as opinion of the Court while adjudicating the dispute by the Tribunal. However, the matter may be considered as early as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.