Kuldeep Singh vs Regional Transport Authority and Others

Tejinder Singh Doabia, J.—Petitioners submit that he applied for issuance of a route permit for plying an air-conditioned Delux coach

between Railway Station, Jammu to Katra, Patnitop, Suriansar, Mansar etc. This was so applied on 31st Jan., 96. As there was delay in the

matter of considering his request, he approached this Court, OWP 258/ 96 was filed. This was disposed of on 25th March. '96. The operative

part of the judgment is being reproduced below :

In the circumstances, on hearing l/c for parties and going through the record before me and considering the nature of controversy, I find no merit in

this petition which is dismissed leaving the petitioners free to approach the appropriate authority for consideration of grant of route permits in

accordance with rules and in case, requirements of such rules are satisfied, the authority concerned may accord consideration to this application.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the directions given by this Court, noticed above, the respondents were

supposed to consider the request of the petitioner for grant of route permit. This having not been done, the petitioner has approached this Court

again.

Respondents have filed objections to the maintainability of the petition. These objections were ordered to be treated as counter.

The stand taken by respondents is that the claim of the petitioner was considered by the Regional Transport Authority in a meeting held on 14th

June, '96. It is submitted that the permits are issued for the following routes only :

i/ Jammu-Kathua area

ii/ Jammu-R. S. Pura

iv/ Jammu-Poonch area

v/ Jammu-Banihal area

It is also stated that the petitioner can opt for any of the routes mentioned above. As per the State, the buses are to be operated on rotation

basis on every route in the zone. This is because some of the zones are lucrative and others are non-lucrative. It is also a case of the State that

point to point route permits are not to be issued. The issuance of these routes leads to the operation of the buses on lucrative routes only. This has

to be avoided.

The learned Counsel for the State has also placed reliance on Rule 69-A of the Rules framed by the State of Jammu and Kashmir on the

subject. On this basis it is submitted that the State is well within its rights to grant permits on zonal basis.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that if the provisions of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 are taken into

consideration, then the restrictions sought to be imposed by the State and the way in which route permits are being ordered to be regulated cannot

be sustained.

Reliance has been placed on the decisions given by the Kerala High Court and Rajasthan High Court. These are Percy Pinto Vs. R.T.A.D.K.,

Mangalore and others, and Shiv Raj Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others, .

There is no dispute with the proposition that Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, makes a substantial change as compared with the old

Act. The object is to liberalise issuance of the permits to all the applicants who are eligible for grant of permits. The language of this Section does

make out that normally there is no limit for grant of a permit on a route, nevertheless, if the decision has been taken by the competent authority,

which decision is a reasonable one, then the question would arise as to whether such decision would come in conflict with the spirit of Section 80

of the Act.

Again, a perusal of Section 80(2) makes it clear that the concerned Transport Authority shall not ordinarily refuse en application for grant of

permit of any kind made at any time. In this Act. the 1st proviso to Section 80(2) does enable the concerned authority to refuse the application if

the grant of any permit would have the effect of increasing the number of stage carriages as specified in a notification which otherwise, if the

Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority or any other prescribed authority is to refuse the application, then it has to give

reasons in writing and before doing so. the person concerned has to be heard in the matter. The necessity to give reasons has been insisted upon in

numerous judicial pronouncements. These decisions have been given while interpreting Section 57(7) of the repealed Act and also under the

present Act. One such decision is reported as Rai Sahib and Vs. State of Haryana and Another, etc. etc., . These reasons must not be vague and

inadequate. See Onkarmal Mistri and Others Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Darjeeling and Others, . Therefore, to a limited extent, the

petitioner is right in his submission that the respondents have not considered his application and have not given any reason with a view to deny him

the route permit and the right which has been conferred upon him u/s 80 of the Act referred to above. The only reason which has been given is that

if the application of the petitioner is allowed then he would be operating on a lucrative route and this cannot be permitted. The petitioner on the

other hand places reliance on Annexure 'E' with the writ petition wherein names of several operators have been given. It is submitted that these

operators are plying on the very routes for which the petitioner is seeking the permit.

To this assertion of the petitioner, the stand taken by respondents is that the persons whose names have been mentioned in Annexure-'E', are

those operators who are operating within the zones on rotational basis. Reliance is also being placed on policy decision taken on 14th Jan. '97.

If the stand taken by respondents and the policy decision, referred to above, is perused, then it becomes apparent :

i/ That point to point permits are not to be issued:

ii/ That the permits are not to be issued in a manner that a particular operator is to operate only on lucrative routes.

The stand of the State taken in the counter is somewhat different from the policy decision Annexure R.A. It is stated by the State that the

petitioner is at liberty to apply for grant of permit for a particular zone and it is only in those circumstances, this application would be considered.

No such decision has been conveyed to the petitioner. The petitioner has also cited some more instances where point to point route permits have

been given. It is also submitted by the petitioner that it would not be possible for him to join a particular group and his right should be determined

individually.

After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the contentions raised in the petition and the stand taken by the

respondents. I am of the opinion that there is merit in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Regional Transport

Authority is under an obligation to consider the prayer of the petitioner and if it has to be rejected then reasons would have to be given by passing

a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This has not happened in the present case. In these circumstances,

a direction is given to the respondents to consider the entire matter afresh and decide the application preferred by the petitioner. If this is to be

rejected then this be done by passing a speaking order. The instances quoted by the petitioner shall be taken note of by the respondents and if

there is no justifiable reason to distinguish the case of the petitioner, then he be also granted the route permit as has been done in case of others.

Let a decision be taken within a period of one month from the date, a copy of this order is made available to the respondents by the petitioner.

Disposed of accordingly.