Jharkhand High Court
Giribala Jha vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 17 July, 2006
Equivalent citations: AIR2007JHAR47, 2007(1)BLJR246, [2007(1)JCR156(JHR)], AIR 2007 JHARKHAND 47, 2007 (1) AIR JHAR R 234, (2007) 1 JCR 156 (JHA), (2006) 4 JLJR 677, (2007) 1 ACC 779, (2007) 2 CURCC 482
Author: Narendra Nath Tiwari
Bench: Narendra Nath Tiwari
JUDGMENT Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.
Page 0247
1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 30.10.2004 and 10.11.2004 passed by the Santhal Pargana Regional Transport Authority, Dumka (respondent No. 2), by which the petitioner's renewal was granted and thereafter he was directed to replace the existing 1990 model Bus by higher model within four months and also for quashing the order dated 14.5.2005, by which the petitioner's appeal against the said order has been dismissed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jharkhand in Transport Appeal No. 6 of 2004.
2. The petitioner's case is that she is an aged lady and after the death of her husband she has been managing the business of bus plying on the route of Dumka to Rohini, two trips up and down daily on the basis of the stage carriage permit. The said stage carriage permit of the petitioner has been renewed by the authority in the meeting held on 30.10.2004 and 10.11.2004 but a condition has been imposed to replace 1990 model bus with a higher model within a period of four months.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the authorities have power to impose any condition on such permit but that has to be done under the provisions of Section 72(2) Clause X of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The authorities without following the said provision cannot impose any condition and the impugned part of the order imposing such condition is wholly arbitrary and illegal.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating, inter alia, that the petitioner has been granted stage carriage permit from Dumka to Rohini via Basukinath two trips up and down daily with a direction to replace her vehicle by higher model. According to the decision taken in the meeting of Santhal Parganas Transport Authority, Dumka in public interest and for the safety of passengers in the same meeting, the renewal was granted to the petitioner with the said condition. It has been submitted that the said authority has got power to impose such condition under the provisions of Section 72(2) of the said Act and, as such there is no illegality and arbitrariness in the said order.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the authority is vested with the power to impose condition on permits under Section 72 of the said Act, but according to Clause X of Section 72(2) of the said Act if the condition is regarding the vehicle of a specified type, fitted with body conforming to approved specifications, it can be imposed by publication of such approved specification and attachment of that condition to a permit shall not prevent the permit holder from continued use of such vehicle, for a period of two years from the date of publication. Learned Counsel fairly submitted that the authority has got power to vary the condition of permit under Rule 80 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules), but Sub-rule (3) of Rule 80 of the said Rules prescribed a procedure for putting such variation in the condition of permit. Rule 80 Sub-rule (3) provides for giving a notice of one month by the authority before verifying the conditions of the permit or for attaching to the permit further conditions, in the official Gazette and only after the expiry from the date of such publication, such condition will be deemed to be attached to the permit and the permit holders in that case have to produce their permits before the concerned Transport Authority to incorporate such variations Page 0248 or additions of conditions, in the existing permit. Learned Counsel submitted that admittedly no such notice has been published in the official Gazette for varying such condition to the permit.
6. Replying to the petitioner's submissions, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the authority has taken a decision and has attached the condition to the permit issued to the petitioner in the public interest and that the said permit was issued to the petitioner in the meeting in which she was also present and as such no separate notice as prescribed in Rule 80(3) of the said Rules, is required to be given or published in the official Gazette.
7. After considering the rival contentions of learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the document available on record, I find that the petitioner was earlier granted stage carriage permit. At the time of renewal of the said permit in the year 2004, the condition for replacing the existing 1990 model Bus by a higher model has been imposed. The law provides that conditions, as prescribed in Section 72(2) of the said Act, can be imposed by the authority for granting stage carriage permit while granting permit to a person and Clause X of Section 72(2) of the said Act provides that the authority can also impose a condition that the vehicles should be of a specified type fitted with body conforming to approved specification but for imposing the said condition the permit holder cannot be prevented from the continued use, for a period of two years from the date of publication of the approved specification of any vehicle operating on that date. No contrary provision has been placed before me in the matter of grant/renewal of stage carriage permit, under which the authority can impose any condition while granting/renewing of such permit without giving any prior notice particularly of a condition for replacing the Bus itself. Rule 80 of the said Rules provides for variation of condition of permit on the application of the permit holder or by the Regional Transport Authority itself, which pre-supposes a permit earlier granted and in that, according to the provisions of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 80 of the said Rules, the Transport Authority has to give a notice in the official Gazette and after expiry of one month from the date of publication of the notice, such condition shall be deemed to be attached to the permit. In the instant case, the condition has been imposed at the time of renewal of the permit and in my view, it falls within the provisions of Section 72(2) Clause X of the said Act. It is, therefore, held that though the authority has got power to impose the condition to the permit granted to the petitioner, the same shall not prevent the petitioner from using her vehicle until the notice, as prescribed, is published in accordance with law or as prescribed under Rules. The respondents-Santhal Pargana Regional Transport Authority, Dumka without taking into consideration the said legal provisions, erroneously imposed the impugned condition and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jharkhand without appreciating the said legal ground has arbitrarily dismissed the petitioner's appeal placing reliance on a decision of Rajasthan High Court reported in AIR 1993 Rajasthan 76, which has got no application to the facts of the instant case.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned orders, as contained in Annexures-3 and 5 respectively, are quashed. This writ application is allowed.
9. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to impose any condition, in accordance with law.