High CourtsDivision Bench

Jitendra Kumar Jain and another vs State of Transport Authority, Lucknow and another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 7 February 2001 · Citation: AIR 2001 All 152 : (2001) 1 AWC 865 : (2001) 1 AWC 8565

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.K. Sen, C.J · S. Rafat Alam, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 103
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
C.M.W.P. No. 4467 of 2001
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 368 words

S. K. Sen, C.J. and S. Rafat Alam, J.—We have heard Mr. Ravi Kant, learned advocate for the writ petitioner and Mr. C. S. Singh, learned standing counsel. In our view, the State Transport Authority was not justified in passing the impugned order directing that the matter relates to the jurisdiction of Regional Transport Authority. In this connection, sub-section (1) of Section 103 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, may be taken note of which reads as under :

"103. Issue of permits to State transport undertakings.--(1) Where, in pursuance of an approved scheme any State transport undertaking applies in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf for a stage carriage permit or a goods carriage permit or a contract carriage permit in respect of a notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority in any case where the said area or route lies in more than one region and the Regional Transport Authority in any other case shall issue such permit to the State transport undertaking notwithstanding any thing to the contrary contained in Chapter V."

2.

It is clear from the aforesaid provision of the Statute that it is the State Transport Authority who is authorized to grant or renew permit on route(s) involving more than one region. In the instant case, the regions involved are three, namely, Saharanpur, Moradabad and Bareilly. In that view of the matter, it was incumbent upon the State Transport Authority to take a decision in the matter. In our view, the State Transport Authority was not justified in referring the matter to the Regional Transport Authority and delay the same, particularly when by our order dated 21.11.2000 we had directed to the State Transport Authority to take a decision in the matter.

3.

Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.1.2001 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition) is quashed. We direct the State Transport Authority to take appropriate decision in accordance with law on the application for renewal which is pending with them for the last two years. Such decision shall be taken by the State Transport Authority within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.