AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.G. Das, J.—The Petitioner No. 1 which is an unregistered Association, namely, Narsingarh Mini Bus Owner''s Syndicate represented by its General Secretary Shri Bimal Kanti Debnath and Petitioner No. 2 Shri Dinesh Sarkar who is one of the members of the Petitioner No. 1 have filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notification dated 5.9.96 issued by the Respondent No. 2 viz. the State Transport Authority (for short "S.T.A.") and also the notification dated 22.11.96 issued by the Respondent No. 3 viz. the Deputy Transport Commissioner contained in Annexure-12.
I have heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. A Chakraborty, the learned Advocate General assisted by Mr, P.K. Paul, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents.
To appreciate the contentions canvassed at the bar by learned Counsel for the parties the facts relevant for the purpose may be stated as under:
The case of the Petitioners is that the Petitioner No. 1 and its other members were granted stage carriage permits for plying their respective buses on route No. 4 i.e. from Agartala motor stand to Narsingarh and back. Some of the permits were issued for a period of 5 years and some other permits were issued for 3/4 months at a time and those were used to be renewed from time to time. The Secretaiy of the Petitioner No. 1 who is the owner of a bus bearing No. TR-01-1239 was granted a permit for plying his bus along aforesaid route No. 4 the validity of which expired on 14.12.96. The grievance of the Secretary is that when he approached the Respondent No. 2 for renewal of the permit of his bus the later varied the conditions of the permit by reducing the distance by about 2 k.m as the renewal was granted for plying the bus along the aforesaid route from Narsingarh to Radhanagar only. The Petitioner No. 2 was granted a permit for his bus for plying along that route No. 4 for a period of 5 years which is to expire on 31.10.98. It is stated that as per the permit the vehicle was allowed to ply from Agartala motor stand to Narsingarh.
But suddenly a notification dated 5.9.96 was published in a Bengali Daily named "Dainik Sambad" on 6.9.96 to the effect that all the stage carriage vehicles plying from Agartala to Narsingarh, Bamutia, Simna, Abhicharan Para, Sonai, under Mohanpur Block i.e. all stage carriage vehicles plying in routes within Sadar North will make movement from Radhanagar newly constructed motor stand and that those vehicles will not be allowed to cross Radhanagar motor stand and to move to and from Agartala town.
Subsequent to this notification the Respondent No. 3 also issued another notification dated 22.11.96 (Annexure-12) requiring the passenger vehicles originating from Mohanpur Block areas, such as Narsingarh, Bamutia, Simna, Abhicharan Para , Sonai, Mohanpur etc. to use Radhanagar Bus Stand of Agartala as their notified halting place as they would not move beyond Radhanagar Bus stand.
The grievance of the Petitioners is that these notifications were issued quite illegally as these notifications not only varied the conditions of the permits but those were issued without hearing the permit holders as required u/s 72(2)(xxii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (heremafter referred to as the Act).
It has been further stated that for issuance of these notifications the public in general are suffering a lot as due to these notifications the passengers are to pay an extra sum of Rs 3/- to come to the town. It is stated that Principal, Polytechnic Institute, Narsingarh and others also brought it to the notice of the Deputy Transport Commissioner in respect of the difficuhies which the students and others have been facing for changing of the halting place of the buses of route No. 4.
The Respondents have filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it has been contended, interalia, that this writ petition is not maintainable as no constitutional or legal right of the Petitioners have been violated and that there being so many disputed fects a writ Court cannot decide those disputed facts and as such a writ petition is not maintainaUe. It has been further contended that existence of an organisation like the Petitioner No. 1 is not known to the Respondents and that no license was issued in respect of any bus in the name of Petitioner No. 1 and hence Petitioner No. 1. has no locus standi to file this writ petition.
It is contended that population of this tiny State suddenly increased due to partition of the country and as a consequence thereof the movonent of public in general in the Agartala town became very hazardous for movement of innumerable vehicles. So, to combat this situation Has authority constructed the new Bus Stand with all facilities at Radhanagar which is hardly at a distance of 2 k.m. from the original bus stand which was situated in front of a girl''s School, namely, Maharani Tulshibati Girl''s School. It has been frirther contended that even though the Petitioners have stated that distance was 14 k.m. from Agartala motor stand to Narsingarh no such distance was actually mentioned in the permit. The State Transport Authority is very much empowered by the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules to select the site of parking and halting of the Buses which, were granted permits. It has been further contended that no condition of the permit was at all varied and as such the question of issuing notice for shifting the bus stand does not arise. The impugned notifications were issued in conformity with the provisions of the Act and Rules. Moreover, such a petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in regard to the personal and individual grievance as actually no asericived person has presented this petition.
Mr. A.K. Bhowmik the learned senior Counsel for the Petitioners, who argued the case for about two days, has at first contended that the statutory provisions of Section 72(2)(xxii) of the Act were violated as the impugned notifications were issued without giving any notice to the permit holders. But when it was pointed out to him that Section 72(2) of the Act envisages that the Regional Transport Authority while issuing permit under this Act may attach any one or more of the conditions as enumerated under Sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the Act and the condition (xxii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the Act being not attached in the permit the Petitioners cannot make any grievance for non issuance of any notice to them before issuing the impugned notifications , the learned Counsel for the Petitioners conceded that his submission was not correct. But in this context it has been contended by Mr. Bhowmik that since condition No. (xxii) was not incorporated in the permit the State Transport Authority has no power to alter any condition of the permit even with notice.
But Mr. A Chakraborty, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Respondents has contended that such an argument is not at all tenable in law in view of the clear mandate of the aforesaid provision. He has brought my attention to the permits contained in Annexures-1, 2, 3, 4 and Sand has submitted that these permits will clearly indicate that clause (xxii) of Sub-section(2) of Section(72) of the Act was not incorporated. It is true that no such condition has been incorporated in the permit. Learned Advocate General has also argued that while obtaining the stay order from the Division Bench the learned Counsel for the petitioiwrs quite wrongly made the submission that notice was required to be issued before issuing the impugned notification. The further contention of learned Advocate General is that the question of issuing any sort of notice does not arise at all as a bare perusal of the impugned notifications will clearly indicate that no cimdition of the permit has at all been violated or that the route has been changed. The learned Advocate General has quite emphatically submitted that the permits contained in Annexure -1 which expired on 14.12.96 would show that the route was mentioned as Town Bus Route No. 4 i.e Agaitala to Narsingarh only. Similarly, Annexure -2 permit will show that route was indicated as Town Bus Route No. 4 (Narsingarh to Radhanagar only) and this permit expired on 13.4.97. As regards Annexure-5 permit it has been argued by the learned Advocate General that this permit already expired on 28.1.97 and that this permit would also show that the route was written as Town Bus Route No. 4 (Motor Stand to Narsingarh only). What has been emphasised by the learned Advocate General is that this permit would not also show that by the words "Motor Stand" any specific place was mentioned.
It is not in dispute that Radhanagar is very much within Agaitala Municipality and the distance of the present Motor Stand, namely Radhanagar Motor Stand is less than 2 k.m. fiom the present stand.
Therefore, keeping the above fects in view we may now examine the provisions laid down u/s 72(2) of the Act which reads as under:
72(2) The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides 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 condition 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 k.m. and, any variation within such limits shall be made only after the 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 80 varied or any part thereof.
The permits which have been Annexed along with this writ petition as Annexures - 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 do not show that this Clause (xxii) was incorporated in any one of those permits Mr. Bhowmik, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has, also conceded that this clause was not attached to the permits. But even then he argued that since this condition was not incorporated the State Transport Authority has no power to alter the conditions of the permits even with notice. But Learned Advocate General has contented that no condition of the permit was varied or altered. Only the parking place/halting place of the vehicles plying to Narsingarh, Bamutia, Simna, Abhicharan Para, Sonai under Mohanpur Block, that is, all stage carriage vehicles plying along Route No. 4 has been changed as they have been asked to make their movement from Radhanagar Bus Stand instead of Agartala Motor Stand. It has been already stated that this newly constructed Motor Stand is very much within Agartala Municipality and its distance from the former Motor Stand is less than 2 k.m. It is the admitted position of the case.
However, to appreciate the contention of Mr. Bhowmik the two notifications which are under challenge may be quoted as under:
NOTIFICICAION
It is hereby notified for the convenience of the public that as per decision of the State Transport Authority it is notified for all owners of motor vehicles, workers, employees and the general public that today 5.9.96 newly constructed Agartala Radhanagar Motor Stand has been inaugurated. All stage carriage vehicles plying from this stand to Narsingarh, Bamutia, Simna, Abhicharan Para, Sonai under Mohanpur Block, i.e. all stage carriage vehicles plying in routes within Sadar North will make movement from Radhanagar instead of Agartala Motor Stand, Agartala Stand in front of Agartala Tulshibati School. Under no circmnstances , all stage carriage vehicles moving from the said station will be allowed to cross Radhanagar Motor Stand and to move to and from Agartala town. The town buses plying on Route No. 4 from Radluinagar Motor Stand from today m place of Agartala Motor Stand. The motor owners and concerned persons are being informed on behalf of the State Transport Authority that they should immediately approach the concerned offices for correction of their permits accordingly.
Sd/- Secretary State Transport Authority Tripura, Agartala.
NOTIFICATION
Dated, the 22/11/1996.
Whereas the undersigned is empowered to issue notification regarding restriction of the use of vehicles as well as power to erect ttaffic signs under Rule 105 under Tripura Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991 read with Section 115 and 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
AND
Whereas the undersigned is satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public safety and convenience to fix on area for use as Traffic Terminus.
Now, therefore the undersigned hereby notifies that the passenger vehicles originating from Mohanpur Block areas, such as Narsingarh, Bamutia, Simna, Abhicharan Para, Sonai and Mohanpur etc. shall use Radhanagar Bus Stand of Agartala as the notified halting place and will not move beyond the said Radhanagar Bus stand which has afready been notified as Bus Stand by State Transport Authority, Agartala vide its No. F.1-7/ADW/ DTC/93, dated 05/09/1996.
This notification covers all passenger buses as well as other vehicle, three wheelers as well as four wheelers and this order is made with immediate effect.
Sd/-Sushil Kumar, District Magistrate, West Tripura.
In drawing my attention to the aforesaid two notifications it is argued by the learned Advocate General that a perusal of these two notifications will clearly indicate that route has not been altered and Aat no condition of the permit has in any manner been altered or varied. It is clear from the aforesaid two notifications that only the parking place/halting place of the stage carriage vehicles plying along route No. 4 has been changed.
In support of his contention the learned Advocate General has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd., Kumbakonam Vs. Raman and Raman Private Ltd. and Another, In this decision their Lordships interpreted Section 48(3) of the former Act which corresponds to Section 72 of the New Act and made the following observation in respect of Section 48(2)(xxi) which corresponds to Section 72(2)(xxii) of the present Act. The observation is as follows:
The view that Section 48(3)(xxi) as amended by itself gives power to R.T.A. to vary routes within certain limits is not correct. That power can be exercised only if a condition to that effect is put in the permit. It cannot be said that Section 48(3) (xxi) as amended operates whether a condition to that effect has been put in a permh or not. Section 48(3) clearly enables the Regional Transport Authority to attach to the permit any or one of the twenty-one conditions. It may in a particular case put one or two or more of the conditions or it may put all the conditions . Admittedly, if any of the first twenty conditions in Section 48(3) is not attadied to a permit it will not have effect and there is no reason why condition(xxi) should be treated differently. If condition(xxi) as amended is not attached to a permit the Regional Transport Authority cannot derive any power from the existence of Section 48(3)(xxi)in the Act
Therefore where the permit contains only a condition similar to the condition mentioned in Section 48(3)(xxi)before its amendment by Act III of 1964 Section 48(3)(xxi) should be treated as non existent and consequently no limitation had been placed on the powers of the Regional Transport Authority in respect of the grant of applications for variation of the route.
In the instant case in view ofthe facts I have discussed above, I am of the view that there was no variation of the route for which the permits as annexed were issued. Validity of the permits under Annexure-1, 2 and 5 already expired. Only permit under Annexure-3 is still in force and it is due to expire on 31.10.98. Item No. 3 of this permit shows that this permit was issued for route No. 4 for Agartala Narsingarh. This permit doesnot indicate any distance. Moreover, this permit also does not indicate that this bus is to ply from Agartala Motor Stand to Narsingarh. What has been written in the permit is that it is to ply from Agartala to Narsingarh.
Therefore, in view of the facts I feel no hesitation to come to the conclusion that there was no variation or alteration of any condition of the permit. Thwe is no dispute that previously these buses of route No. 4 used to start from the front of renowned Girl''s School. By the aforesaid notifications these buses have been asked to park/halt at Radhanagar Bus Stand which has all die facilities. There is no dispute about the facilities/amenities provided in the newly constructed Bus Stand at Radhanagar.
Mr. Bhowmik has, however, contended that principles of natural justice were not followed in the present case before issuance of the aforesaid two notifications. He consistently argued that conditions of the permit were alteced.
In view of the facts and the decision of the Supreme Court as quoted above I am unable to pursuade myself to agree with the submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioners. I am of the view that there has been no variation or alteration of any condition of the permit. The impugned notifications clearly show that these notifications were issued in the interest of general public.
As I have made the finding that there has not been any variation or alteration of the permit the decision of the Madras High Court S.V. Natesa Mudaliar, Proprietor, S.L.N.S. Transports Vs. Sri Dhanapal Bus Service Private Ltd. and Others, is not applicable to the present case.
Another point which has been urged by the learned Advocate General for dismissal of the writ petition is that the Petitioner No. 1 is an unrecognised Association wiiich is not known to the Respondents. It is argued that Bimal Kanti Debnath who has posed himself as Secretary of this unrecognised Association is also not authorised to present this petition. At the time of closing his arguments learned Counsel for the Petitioners has, however, submitted a document showing that Bimal Kanti Debnath was authorised by Petitioner No. 1 to present the writ petition. But it is not understandable why the resolution book was not produced before the Court. The resolution book , if produced, would surely show on which date this un-registered associaticm took the resolution authorising Bimal Kanti Debnath to present the writ petition. But that having not been done, it is difficult to accept this document at this late stage.
In the case of Madhab Chandra Das and Ors. Petitioners v. Regional lyansport Authority, Gauhati Region and Ors., opposite parties, reported in AIR 1954 Gau 212 it has been held that a person cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 in representative capacity on behalf of others as Secretary of Association, in the absence of such authority.
Learned Advocate General has also argued that no permit has been issued in the name of Petitioner No, 1 and this being not a public interest litigation such a petition without the leave of the Court is not entertainable. But Mr. A.K Bhowmik, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has contended that such a petition is maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) represented by its Assistant General Secretary on behalf of the Association Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, But on going through the relevht portion of the judgment I find that the aforesaid case dealt with a number of writ Petitioners filed by the economically backward classes and the question was in respect of enlarging the scope of the existing Scheme of reservation for S.C and S.T. Moreover, in tha case para 63 to wiiich my attention was drawa shows that learned Attorney General did net take any objection to a non-recognised Association for maintaining the writ petitions.
In the instant case the pemiits Annexures 1 and 2 show that those were issued in the name of Bimal Kanti Debnath and those permits akeady expired. Hie permits which have been annexed do not show that any of those was issued in the name of Petitioner No. 2. Moreover, Petitioner No. 2 neithw swore any affidavit nor did authorise Bimal Kanti Debnath by any lawful declaration to present the case on his behalf.
I am of the view that a writ application can only be filed by a person concerned wiiose legal right has been affected by the action of the Respondents. There may be cases where a large number of persons may be affected by a common order and such a composite application is also maintamable where common order is challenged on any ground. In the instant case, admittedly, the writ application has been filed by an un-registered association, the members of which is un-certain or in oW words not disclosed in the writ petition. The writ application can be filed by a person affected and there may be cases where the writ application is maintainable by any third party as a public interest litigation.
The Supreme Court also observed in the case of The State of Orissa Vs. Madan Gopal Rungta, that the existence of of the right is the foundation of the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 vsiiichhas been reafiSrmed in a number of subsequent cases . The permit which was issued in the name of Bimd Kanti Debnath also expired.
For all the reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the interim order stands vacated. No costs.