Shri Narayan Chandra Talukdar vs The Regional Transport Authority and Others

K.N. Saikia, J.—The writ Petitioner herein impugns the judgment (sic)order dated 23.1.82 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, (sic) dismissing the Petitioner''s appeal and affirming the decision (sic) of the Regional Transport Authority, Kamrup, Gauhati (sic)ns to renew the Periodic Stage Carriage Permit or the Petitioner.

The Petitioner was granted Periodic Stage Carriage Permit (sic) 2/73 and he placed Bus No. ASZ 6423. On 23.1.80 the Petitioner (sic)duly submitted an application for renewal of his permit, I was granted a temporary permit after the expiry of the 6(sic) of the Periodic Stage Carriage Permit till 16.5.81 pending renewal of the periodic permit. As ill luck would have it the Petitioner''s, vehicle met with an, accident while proceeding with marriage party on 12.3.81 in which the vehicle was damaged (sic)all Its documents were lost. However, the Petitioner not(sic) fited. to ejahar about the accident but also applied for duplicate copies of the lost documents in the office of the Regional reports Authority by paying Rs. 50/- on 24.3.81. On 25.3.81 Regional Transport Authority met and rejected the Petitioner''s application for renewal of his Periodic Stage Carriage Permit on ground that no documents relating to the vehicle could be produced by his representative. The Petitioner received a letter (sic) 21.7.81 directing him to stop plying his vehicle. Obtaining fortified copy of the order the Petitioner appealed u/s 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the order dated 25.3.81 on 5.9.81 and obtained a stay order pending disposal of the appeal on 10.9.81. an before the appeal was filed on 5.9.81, the Petitioner paid arrear tax of Rs. 2,076/. for the period from 1.7.80 to 30.6.81. (sic)ring the pendency of the appeal, on 10.9.81 the Petitioner before the District Transport ''officer'' his registration certificate valid: upto 30.9.81 and fitness certificate valid upto 1.8.82. He paid, on 1.10.81 tax of Rs. 504/- for the period upto 31.12.81 period, later on 13.1.82 he paid another sum of Rs, 504/- for the period upto 313.82 and insured the vehicle upto 12.11.82. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal by its Order dated 23.l.82 dismissed, the appeal pointing out, inter alia, that the Petitioner was a defaulter in respect of payment of token tax since 1.7.80 on 25.3.81 on which date the Regional Transports Authority met. Hence this petition.

There is no doubt that on 25.3.81, when the R.T.A. took up the question of renewal of the Petitioner''s Periodic Stage Carriage Permit, under Rule 78 of the Assam Motor Vehicle Rules lead with the provisions of Sections 57 and 58, of the Motor Vehicles Act, he was required to produce the documents in respect of hit vehicle, particularly the registration certificate, fitness certificate, insurance certificate and tax token up-to-date. Admittedly, though the Petitioner was represented before the R.T.A. none of those documents was produced and it is clear from the facts that hit vehicle having met with an; accident a fresh fitness certificate was yet to be obtained and the tax having been in arreas on that day no up-to-date tax token could be produced. Though, as has been observed in D. Nataraja Mudaliar Vs. The State Transport Authority, Madras, at para 9. "The Authority must'' remember that a permit holder has an ordinary right of renewal unless it is shown that outweighing reasons of public interest'' lead to a contrary result and that permits are not bounty" but right, restricted reasonably by the Motor Vehicles Act", in the instant case admittedly no documents whatsoever could be produced before the R.T.A. at the relevant time. Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down the procedure in; applying for and granting permits. Section 58(2) of the Act provides:

(2) A permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an application for a permit:

Provided that the application for the renewal of a permit shall be made-

(a) in the case of a stage carriage permit or a public carrier''s permit, not less than one hundred and twenty days before the date of its expiry ; and

(b) in any other ease, not less than sixty days before the date of its expiry:

Provided further that other conditions being equal, an application for renewal shall be given preference over applications for permits.

Rule 78 of the Assam Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 provides:

Renewal of permits.- (a) Application for the renewal of a permit shall be made, in writing to the Regional Transport Authority by which the permit was issued, not less than six weeks in the case of a stage carriage permit or a public carrier''s permit, and not less than one month in other cases, before the expiry of the permit, and snail be accompanied by Part A of the permit. The application shall state the period for which the renewal is desired I and shall be accompanied by the prescribed fee.

(b) The Regional Transport Authority redwing a permit I shall call upon the holder to produce Part 3 or Parts B thereof, as the can may be and shall endorse Parts A and B accordingly and shall return them to the holder." In face of the above provisions of law it cannot be said the R.T.A was in a position to renew the Petitioner''s (sic)nit when no document was produced.

Mr. S.N. Medhi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, permits that the appellate authority took into consideration the petition of default which was not mentioned by the R.T.A. (sic) However, in view of the tact that the production of Up-to-date tax token was necessary and tax upto date was not (sic) it cannot be said that the appellate authority travelled (sic)de the statutory requirement. The appellate order cannot (sic) interfered with on this ground. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further states that he has not only repaired the vehicle (sic) also obtained the necessary fitness and insurance certificates up-to-date and has paid tax upto 30.6.82 and has been main (sic) the vehicle in the hope of plying it in the route for (sic) the permit was granted to him. It has also been stated (sic) no new permit has yet been issued in the said, route and (sic)rolly the public ate deprived of that service, A vehicle means considerable investment and in these days of hardship and (sic) maintenance of such a vehicle without plying it natureconsiderable loss to the Petitioner. In D. Nataraja Mudaliar (Supra) it has been (stated that an application for renewal should not be denied fair consideration as huge investment has gone to waste because of non-renewal".

As we have not found any infirmity in the decision of the Regional Transport Authority as well as in that of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders and this petition is accordingly rejected and the Rule discharged. But under the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.

We, however, observe that under the circumstances, namely that the Petitioner has paid all his dues up-to-date and has obtained and filed before the District Transport Officer all the required certificates and documents and no alternative permit in the route has been granted to anybody else, his case may be considered in the light of the above tacts should he approach the authority for a renewal or a fresh permit.