Yograj Singh vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT), Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This petition is directed against the judgment & order dated 03.08.2010 passed by State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Dehradun, whereby Appeal No. 25 of 2008 filed by respondent no. 4 against the order of refusal by Regional Transport Authority to grant permanent stage carriage permit to him was set-aside with a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to issue permanent stage carriage permit to respondent no. 4, within one month.

Dehradun-Rishikesh-Narendranagar route was notified by the State Government vide notification dated 16.03.1961 in exercise of power under Section 68 D (3) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, meaning thereby that only the buses of State Transport Undertaking could ply on the said route to the complete exclusion of Private Operators. The State Government, subsequently, issued a notification on 05.08.1994 in exercise of powers under Section 102 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby it approved the Scheme of supplementing operation of U.P. Road Transport Corporation Bus Services within Dehradun city within a radius of 20 kms. (in exceptional 25 kms.), meaning thereby the private sector buses could also ply in the said route in addition to the State Transport Undertaking.

According to the petitioner, a four member Survey Committee was constituted in the year 1995 to fix the time table of City Bus Route and also to determine the maximum number of permits, which could be granted on the said Route. According to the petitioner, strength of 15 additional permits was determined for the aforesaid Route and the Regional Transport Authority advertised the vacancies in local newspapers and invited applications. A total of 101 applications were received from various persons including respondent no. 4. The Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun vide order dated 14.05.2005 granted 15 stage carriage permits; while application of respondent no. 4 was rejected.

Thereafter, on 10.03.2006, respondent no. 4 again applied for permanent stage carriage permit for the aforesaid route, however, his application, according to the petitioner, was not in Form No. SR-20 and was also not in conformity with Section 70 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The second application filed by respondent no. 4 was disallowed by the Regional Transport Authority vide resolution dated 15.05.2006 stating that although route in question is notified route and private operators have also been permitted to operate in view of notification dated 05.08.1994; Regional Transport Authority had granted 15 permits against 15 vacancies in its earlier meeting held on 14.05.2005, which was set aside by learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal, against which writ petitions were filed which are pending before this Court, therefore, it is not possible to issue any new stage carriage permit at this stage.

Respondent no. 4 filed an Appeal under Section 89 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was registered as Appeal No. 25 of 2008. The said Appeal was dismissed by learned Tribunal on 23.05.2007 on the ground of delay, against which, respondent no. 4 filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1524 of 2007 and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed learned Tribunal to decide the Appeal on merits. Ultimately, the Appeal filed by respondent no. 4 was allowed by learned Tribunal vide judgment & order dated 03.08.2010. Hence, this writ petition.

A bare perusal of the impugned judgment passed by learned Tribunal reveals that the Appeal filed by respondent no. 4 has been allowed on the premise that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a liberalized Scheme for grant of stage carriage permit was introduced, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1992 SC 443.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the liberalized policy of grant of permits discussed in the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg (Supra) was regarding non notified routes under Chapter V of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; while, the route in question is a notified route, therefore, falls under Chapter VI of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Krishna Verma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1888. Paragraph no. 13 of the said judgment reads as under:

"13. It is true as contended by Shri Salve that in Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 168: (AIR 1992 SC 443), this Court held that the liberal policy of grant of permits under Section 80 of the Act is directed to eliminate corruption and favourtism in the process of granting permits, eliminate monopoly of few persons and making operation on a particular route economically viable and encourage healthy competition to bring about efficiency in the trade. But the free ply is confined to grant of permits under Chapter V of the Act. By operation of Section 98 of the Act, Chapter VI overrides Chapter V and other law and shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter V or any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of such law. The result is that even under the Act the existing scheme under the repealed Act or made under Chapter VI of the Act shall have overriding effect on Chapter V notwithstanding any right given to private operators in Chapter V of the Act. No corridor protection to private operators is permissible."

I find force in the contention made on behalf of the petitioner. The route in question is a notified route, although private operators have also been permitted to ply their buses, therefore, by operation of Section 98 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provisions contained in Chapter VI would override the provisions of Chapter V of the Act, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Krishna Verma (Supra). Learned Tribunal overlooked this aspect of the matter and directed for grant of permit to respondent no. 4, as if the route in question was a non notified route.

Moreover, in paragraph no. 15 of the writ petition, it has been specifically pleaded that application made by respondent no. 4 was not on prescribed proforma i.e. Form No. SR-20 of Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 and further that his application was not in conformity with the provisions of Section 70, 71 & 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun has filed a counter affidavit. In paragraph no. 27 of the said affidavit, it is stated that application made by respondent no. 4 on 10.03.2006 was not filed in prescribed Form No. SR-20.

Rule 64 of Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 is extracted below for ready reference:

"64. Every application for a permit in respect of a transport vehicle shall be in one of the following forms that is to say-

(i) in respect of a stage carriage in Form SR-20."

A bare perusal of Rule 64 (i) of Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 reveals that every application for stage carriage permit should be filed in Form SR-20. Thus, it is a mandatory requirement of law, which cannot be dispensed with. Section 70 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 also requires that an application for a stage carriage permit must contain the following particulars, namely, (a) the route or routes or the area or areas to which the application relates; (b) the type and seating capacity of each such vehicle; (c) the minimum and maximum number of daily trips proposed to be provided and the time-table of the normal trips (d) the number of vehicles intended to be kept in reserve to maintain the service and to provide for special occasions;

(e) the arrangements intended to be made for the housing, maintenance and repair of the vehicles, for the comfort and convenience of passengers and for the storage and safe custody of luggage; (f) such other matters as may be prescribed.

Since it is the specific case of the petitioner that the application made by respondent no. 4 was not in prescribed Form SR-20, meaning thereby that the requisite information was not supplied by him in his application for grant of stage carriage permit.

The stand taken by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority leaves no room for doubt that application made by respondent no. 4 was not in the prescribed proforma i.e. Form SR-20. Since it is a requirement of law that application for grant of stage carriage permit should be made in Form SR-20, therefore, the application made by respondent no. 4 is no application in the eyes of law. It is settled position in law that when statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner then it must be done in that manner alone or not at all. Learned Tribunal, however, overlooked this vital aspect of the matter while allowing the Appeal filed by respondent no. 4 and directing the Regional Transport Authority to grant permanent stage carriage permit to respondent no. 4.

In such view of the matter, judgment & order passed by learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned judgment & order dated 03.08.2010 passed by learned Tribunal is quashed. This order will not preclude respondent no. 4 from applying afresh for grant of stage carriage permit, in accordance with law.