Tarsem Kumar vs Presiding Officer, State Transport Appellate Tribunal

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—The petitioner executed a power of attorney in favour of respondent No. 3 on 22.7.2010 with regard to his mini

bus bearing Registration No. PB-11-Y-1196, Chassis No. 418181, Engine No. 433416, Model 1992, Make LPT-1210 covered with permit

No. 975/Reg/MB/2003 valid upto 4.2.2003 regarding route of Dera Bassi to Bhagsi via Barwala (Six) Trips in which respondent No. 3 was

granted power to sell or transfer the ownership of the said vehicle; to apply the NOC to the concerned authority and to receive the NOC from the

office. The power of attorney was cancelled and a public notice was also given in this regard on 15.7.2011. The dispute arose between the parties

because respondent No. 3 along with respondent No. 4 made a joint application to respondent No. 2 for transfer of mini bus No. PB-11-AC-

9208 along with the rights of one regular stage carriage permit No. 975/MBR/03 for plying four return trips daily on Dera Bassi-Bhagsi route in

terms of Rule 81 of the Punjab Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 [for short ''the Rules''], It was alleged by respondent No. 3 that due to financial needs

the bus has been sold along with mini bus permit to respondent No. 4. That application was allowed by respondent No. 3 vide his order dated

13.10.2011. The petitioners challenged that order by way of revision u/s 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short ''the Act''] before

respondent No. 1 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 28.8.2012 on the ground that the petitioners have failed to bring on record as to

when the attorney was cancelled. The petitioners have thus challenged both the orders dated 13.10.2011 and 28.8.2012 by way of present writ

petition in which notice was issued and separate replies have been filed by respondents No. 2 and 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that although the power of attorney was cancelled on 9.6.2011, much before the impugned

order was passed by respondent No. 2, on the application of respondent No. 3, on 13.10.2011 as the power of attorney was only notarized and

was cancelled by the petitioners informing respondent No. 3 but also a public notice was given in this regard on 15.7.2011 in the ''Transport

Times''. It is further submitted that even otherwise, respondent No. 3 had no power to transfer the permit as well, as the power was confined to

sell or transfer of the ownership of the vehicle (mini bus) Only.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the power of attorney was irrevocable and the petitioner should have

got it revoked through some legal document. It is further submitted that respondent No. 3 was duly conferred with the power, in the power of

attorney, to transfer the permit as well as it is reflected in para No. 8 thereof in which it is provided that ""to do all other necessary things which may

be required to be done for effective it on the road and selling and transferring to some one else"".

I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders

are illegal and are liable to be set aside.

A bare look at the power of attorney would show that the petitioners had only empowered respondent No. 3 to sell or transfer the ownership of

the vehicle and not the route permit as ownership of vehicle and the route permit are two distinct properties. The argument raised by learned

counsel for the respondents that in para No. 8 of the power of attorney, power has been given to respondent No. 3 to do all other necessary

things would include the transfer of the permit as well, is not acceptable because had it been the intention of the petitioners to clothe respondent

No. 3 with the power to transfer route permit as well, there would have been a specific reference in that regard in the power of attorney as I have

already observed that ownership of the vehicle and route permit are two distinct properties which cannot be presumed to be transferred with the

transfer of ownership of the vehicle for the reason that the person, who is purchasing the vehicle may not be interested in the route permit or may

be interested in plying the vehicle on some other route. Moreover, the power of attorney, which is only notarized was cancelled by the petitioner

on 9.6.2011 by serving a legal notice to respondent No. 3 and also made a publication in the Transport Times'' dated 15.7.2011 in this regard but

still this fact was not brought to the notice of respondent No. 2, who at the time of transfer of the vehicle as well as route permit passed the

impugned order on 13.10.2011. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition is found to be meritorious and the same is

hereby allowed and the impugned orders dated 13.10.2011 and 28.8.2012 are hereby quashed. No costs.