Himachal Pradesh High Court
______________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another on 3 June, 2016
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 3250 of 2015 Reserved on: 30.05.2016 .
Decided on: 03.06.2016 ______________________________________________________ Jaswant Singh.
.....Petitioner.
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another.
......Respondents.
of _______________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
1Whether approved for reporting?
rt ______________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Virender K. Verma, Addl. AG, with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy. AG.
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
The present writ petition is maintained by the petitioner for issuance of writs in the nature of certiorari and mandamus or any other order to the respondents directing them to renew and grant route permit to the petitioner on Jutogh-Sanjauli via Bus Stand route.
2. Briefly stating, as per the petitioner, he was issued a route 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:56 :::HCHP 2permit for the bus bearing registration number HP 51-2230, replaced by bus number HP 51B-2529, and this route permit was issued w.e.f. 04.09.2001 to 02.09.2010. As per the petitioner, he applied for renewal of the route permit .
on 25.08.2010 and on 16.09.2010, respondent No. 2 wrote a letter to the petitioner directing him to complete the requisite formalities, like production of RC, Insurance, bank No Objection Certificate etc. As per the petitioner, of vide applications dated 26.04.2011 and 29.04.2011, petitioner again sought renewal of his route permit. As far as the documents are concerned, as per rt the petitioner, he could not submit the documents as they were lost. The petitioner produced rapat No. 9, dated 05.03.2011, registered as Police Post, Jutogh, with respect to the loss of documents.
3. The petitioner has further averred that the respondents, in similar circumstances, have renewed the permits of other persons, but the application of the petitioner was rejected. Thereafter, on 19.08.2011, the petitioner maintained an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority. The appeal was allowed partially by the learned Appellate Authority on 11.07.2013 declaring the cancellation of the route permit as illegal and not justifiable. The respondents were also directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Regional Transport Authority, Shimla, in its meeting held on 03.10.2013 and was discussed in ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:56 :::HCHP 3 the Committee meeting, vide Item No. 9, but the petitioner, despite repeated inquires, was not informed about the outcome of the meeting. Finally, when the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, he .
was informed that respondent No. 2 has decided to assail the order of the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal. As the petitioner heard nothing about his matter, he again represented the matter to the respondents for of renewal of the route permit. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter, dated 20.12.2014, wherein the petitioner was asked to apply for a new route rt permit, as per the new policy.
4. The petitioner assails the action of the respondents for asking the petitioner to apply for fresh route permit and not renewing the earlier route permit as against law. As per the petitioner, he is ready and willing to deposit the arrears of Special Road Tax (SRT), the respondents were required to renew his permit and not to ask for application for fresh permit. Further, as per the petitioner, the order of the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal has attained finality and the action of the respondents is arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
5. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents. The respondents have taken preliminary objection that the writ is not maintainable as no right of the petitioner has been infringed, the petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:56 :::HCHP 4 has not come to the Court with clean hands, he has concealed the material facts and has failed to deposit the fee alongwith the application for renewal.
The petitioner has failed to comply with relevant provisions of law and he is .
estopped from maintaining the present petition due to his own acts, conducts and deeds. As per the respondents, the petitioner was a Special Road Tax (SRT) defaulter and so his application could not be considered for of renewal. It is further stated that on 19.08.2011, the Regional Transport Authority considered the application of the petitioner for renewal and rejected rt the same, as per law, as the petitioner has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and further the petitioner is required to apply for fresh route permit and he has failed to do so.
6. On merits, the fact regarding the issuance of route permit to the petitioner was admitted for Bus No. HP 51-2230 from Jutogh to Sanjauli via Bus Stand 5-RT issued on 04.09.2000 and was valid up to 02.09.2010.
The matter with regard to appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is also admitted, but it is submitted by the respondents that the petitioner has not applied for new route permit, as per the new policy, and so his case cannot be considered.
7. The respondents have submitted that Regional Transport ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:56 :::HCHP 5 Authority, in its meeting held on 03.10.2013, considered the application of the petitioner vide Item No. 9 and decided to assail the order passed by learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal on 11.07.2013. However, the .
Regional Transport Authority, in its meeting held on 26.02.2015, again considered the matter and held as under:-
"The applicant is present in person before the RTA and an opportunity of being heard afforded to the applicant.
of RTA discussed the case in detail and going through the facts of the case rejected the application of the applicant to renew the permit of bus No. HP51B-2529 due to tax defaulter. However, RTA directed to the applicant to apply for the alternate route as and when rt the new route is advertised by the department and call the applicants for the advertised routes, preference shall be given to applicant subject to clearance of the outstanding dues."
8. The respondents have further averred that the petitioner was intimated vide letter No. 1051747, dated 20.12.2014, to apply for alternative route, which falls under the realm of existing Transport Policy, but till date the petitioner has failed to do so and thus the petitioner has no cause of action against them. The petitioner submitted application on 27.08.2010 for renewal of route permit and he was directed vide letter No. RTA/SML/HP51B-
2529/2010-1187, dated 16.09.2010, to complete the requisite formalities, however, after a lapse of six months on 19.03.2011, 26.04.2011 and 27.04.2011 the petitioner approached the respondents without complying the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:56 :::HCHP 6 earlier directions. The petitioner was again directed vide letter No. RTA/SML/HP51B-2529/2010, dated 04.05.2011, received in person by Shri Randhir GPA, for completion of requisite formalities, but again the petitioner .
failed to complete the formalities and the matter was placed before the meeting of Regional Transport Authority on 19.08.2011 and the petitioner was given opportunity of being heard.
of
9. Regional Transport Authority in its meeting, held on 03.10.2013, considered the matter vide Item No. 9 and decided to file an rt appeal against the order passed by the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal on 11.07.2013, however, Regional Transport Authority, did not file any appeal and the matter was again placed before the Regional Transport Authority, in its meeting held on 26.02.2015, and it was concluded that the matter be decided on merits in compliance of the order of the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal. It is further averred that the case of the petitioner for renewal of route permit was not considered, as the petitioner failed to complete the requisite formalities and he was a Special Road Tax defaulter. It is also submitted that the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 11.07.2013, has ordered to consider the application of the petitioner for new route permit, as per the existing Transport Policy, whereas the petitioner has failed to submit such application.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:56 :::HCHP 710. Heard. It is on record that the Regional Transport Authority in its order dated 11.07.2013 has observed as under:-
"For the reasons detailed above I am thus constrained to .
hold that though the renewal was rightly rejected by the RTA, for want of codal formalities, but the cancellation of the permit per-se was bad in the eyes of law, being against the specific mandate of Section 86. The RTA could have refused renewal for want of requisite documents. However, before cancelling the route permit the respondent RTA had to take recourse to the provision of Section 86. To this limited extent the action of the of respondent is bad. The appeal is thus partly allowed, holding that the cancellation of the permit under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicle Act is illegal and unjust. The respondents are directed to consider the aspect of rt cancellation after resorting to the provision of Section 86, if so desired. While reconsidering the case the respondent shall keep in mind the right of the applicant to seek a new route permit, as per existing policy of the respondent. The appeal is thus partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Be consigned to record after completion."
11. After order dated 11.07.2013, the respondents were required to reconsider the case of the petitioner by resorting to Section 86 of the Motor Vehicle Act, if so desired. Section 86 specifically provides that no permit can be cancelled without providing opportunity to the permit holder to furnish his explanation. Even after the order was passed, no notice was served upon the petitioner asking his explanation. The respondents are silent about the action they had taken on the renewal application of the petitioner.
The petitioner has been issued route permit for Bus No. HP51-2230, replaced ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:56 :::HCHP 8 by Bus No. HP51B-2529, for route Jutogh to Sanjauli via Bus Stand-5-RT issued on 04.09.2001 valid up to 02.09.2010. As per the position emanating from the record, the petitioner had applied for renewal of the route permit .
well before the expiry of the same. The respondents were duly bound to pass orders on the renewal application, but for the reasons best known to the respondents, they had not passed any order on the renewal application, even of after the decision of the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal. When the information was supplied to the petitioner, under the Right to Information rt Act, 2005, it has become clear that the Regional Transport Authority has decided to assail the order of State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The decision of the Regional Transport Authority reads as under:-
"Renewal of Stage Carriage Permit in favour of Sh.
Jaswant Singh S/o Sh. Sher Singh R/o Devki Kali Building Village Dhanda PO Totu Tehsil and Distt. Shimla HP through GPA of Sh. Randheer Singh S/o Sh. Sher Singh S/o Sh. Sher Singh R/o Devki Kali Building Village Dhanda PO Totu Tehsil and Distt. Shimla H.P. The applicant applied for the renewal of Stage Carriage Permit No. 141/R/2000 issued on 04.09.2000 route Jatogh- Sanjauli- via Bus Stand - 5RT. The office of Secy RTA informed the applicant to produce the requisite documents and complete codal formalities for the renewal of permit. On 19.03.2011 the applicant again requested the office for renewal of his permit but without completion of codal formalities. The matter was placed before RTA in its meeting held on 19.08.2011 and decided to reject his application under Section 81 and 86 © of M.V. Act, 1988. The RTA further directed to recover the SRT amount from the applicant.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:56 :::HCHP 9
The applicant aggrieved by the Orders of RTA dated 19.08.2011 preferred an appeal No. 18/2011 on 21.12.2011 before Hon'ble State Transport Appellate Tribunal decided the matter on 11.07.2013 operative part is as under:-
For the reasons detailed above I am thus constrained to .
hold that though the renewal was rightly rejected by the RTA, for want of codal formalities, but the cancellation of the permit per-se was bad in the eyes of law, being against the specific mandate of Section 86. The RTA could have refused renewal for want of requisite documents. However, before canceling the route permit the respondent RTA had to take recourse to the provisions Section 86. To this limited extent the action of of the respondent is bad. The appeal is thus partly allowed, holding that the cancellation of the permit under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicle Act is illegal and unjust. The respondents are directed to reconsider the rt aspect of cancellation after resorting to the provision of Section 86, if so desired. While reconsidering the case the respondents shall keep in mind the right of the appellant to seek a new route permit, as per the existing policy of the respondent. The appeal is thus partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no orders as to costs. Be consigned to record after completion.
It is pertinent to mention here that as per decision of the Hon'ble STAT the appeal is partly allowed and raised question on embarking of RTA on cancellation of permit under Section 86 of M.V. Act, 1988. In addition to above it is further pointed out that applicant is defaulter of Special Road Tax to the tune of Rs. 2,75,250/- till 19.08.2011.
The RTA examined the matter in view of above facts and observed that there are many operators/applicants who are ready to pay arrear of SRT and want to get their expired/deposited permit renewed. RTA further decided to file an appeal before Hon'ble High Court against the orders passed by State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Shimla."
12. The respondents have failed to show anything on record that they have assailed the order of the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
The case of the respondents is that thereafter the matter was again placed ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:56 :::HCHP 10 before the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting held on 26.02.2015 and the matter was decided on merits in compliance of the order of the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
.
13. Again, no order has been passed on the application for renewal of route permit submitted by the applicant, which is still pending with the respondents. The action of the respondents in not deciding the application of (Annexure P-1) of the petitioner, dated 25.08.2010, for renewal of route permit, which he has submitted well before the expiry of his route permit, in rt accordance with law, is wholly arbitrary. It has come on record that the respondents requested the petitioner to produce the Registration Certificate of the vehicle, Insurance, Bank No Objection Certificate and original copy of the route permit and also deposit the outstanding Special Road Tax before the renewal of the route permit. In this regard, the petitioner has pleaded that instead of producing the documents, he has produced rapat No. 9, dated 05.03.2011, registered at Police Post, Jutogh, Shimla, with regard to loss of these documents. The petitioner has stated that in the similar circumstances, the cases of other persons were reconsidered, but he has failed to name any person whose case was reconsidered by the respondents and route permit was renewed.
14. The petitioner has also failed to show that he has deposited the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:56 :::HCHP 11 outstanding Special Road Tax. Taking into consideration the overall material, which is available on record, this Court finds that respondents were duty bound to have complied with the order of the learned State Transport .
Appellate Tribunal, which has attained finality and were also required to reconsider the fact of cancellation after resorting to the provisions of Section 86 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Though the respondents have submitted that of the petitioner was present in the meeting, held on 26.02.2015, but there is nothing on record why the petitioner was present on that day. There is rt nothing on record that the petitioner was asked to give his explanation or whether he was given any show cause notice or whether he was asked to appear before the Regional Transport Authority for consideration of his renewal application.
15. The net result of the above discussion is that the respondents are required to be directed to reconsider the renewal application of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as applicable at the time of the submission of the renewal application (Annexure P-1). Accordingly, the respondents are directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner (Annexure P-1) for the renewal of the route permit, in accordance with law, after the petitioner deposits the arrears of Special Road Tax (SRT), which was due till the application for renewal was filed, and also ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:56 :::HCHP 12 furnish the documents to the respondents, and in case the documents are not still traced then the duplicate documents be produced and thereafter the Regional Transport Authority will pass a detailed order and communicate the .
same to the petitioner. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
16. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is disposed of of, so also pending application(s), if any.
rt (Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
Judge
3 rd June, 2016
(virender)
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:56 :::HCHP