Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Meenatullaha Rahmani on 9 August, 2024
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2024:CGHC:30008
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Reserved for Order on : 19.06.2024
Order Passed on : 09/08/2024
WPC No. 2664 of 2022
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh
Through The Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of
Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
(The petitioner No.1 was not a party before the learned State Transport
Appellate Tribunal but has been impleaded as petitioner no.1 in the instant
petition as the proper course is to implead the State Government through
the Secretary of the concerned Department.
2. Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan,
Nawa Raipur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1 - Meenatullaha Rahmani S/o Mohammad Fharuq Aged About 43 Years
R/o Kharsiya Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh
2 - Vijay Kumar Garg S/o Shri T.R. Garg
Bus Operator, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
3 - M/s. Ambika Transport
Seth Basantlal Marg, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh
4 - Chhabda Bus Service
Bus Operator, Ring Road, Namnakala, Ambikapur, District Surguja,
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
AND WPC No. 1737 of 2022 1 - Minnatullah Rahmani S/o Mohd. Farukh Aged About 44 Years R/o Kharsia Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Digitally signed Through The Secretary, Department Of Transport New Mantralaya , New by BALRAM PRASAD Raipur Chhattisgarh.
DEWANGAN Date:
2024.08.12 15:05:48 +0530 2
2 - State Transport Authority Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Secretary State Transport Authority, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Vijay Kumar Garg S/o T.R. Garg Bus Operator, R/o Village Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 5 - M/s Ambika Transport Through Pradeep Kumar Agrawal , R/o Seth Basant Lal Marg, Ambikapur , District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 6 - M/s Chhabra Bus Service Bus Operator, R/o Ring Road, Namnakala, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy.A.G. (In WPC No.2664 of 2022 and respondents No.1 and 2 in WPC No.1737 of 2022) For Respondents No.1 (in WPC : Mr. Brajesh Dubey, Advocate with No.2664 of 2022 and petitioner Mr. Anshul Ranjan Shrivastava in WPC No. 1737 of 2022) Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu C A V ORDER
1. With the consent of the parties, the matters are heard finally.
2. Since both the petitions arise out of the same order, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.
3. Petitioners/State has filed W.P. (C) No.2664 of 2022 challenging the order dated 31.01.2022, passed in Appeal No. A-23/2020, whereby the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (In short 'the STAT'), Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) has allowed the appeal of respondent No.1 -Minnatullah Rahmani. 3 However, petitioner - Minnatullah Rahmani has filed W.P.(C) No.1737 of 2022 seeking direction from this Court for compliance of the aforesaid order passed by the STAT, Raipur.
4. Facts relevant for disposal of this case are that respondent No.1 (in WPC No. 2664 of 2022 and petitioner in WPC No.1737 of 2022) (hereinafter referred referred as 'respondent No.1') has submitted an application under Section 72 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (In short 'the Act of 1988') for grant of Regular Stage Carriage Permit for passenger Bus No. C.G. -15- AB 0744 on inter-state route from Raigarh to Ranchi via Gharghoda, Dharamjaigarh, Pathalgaon, Ludeg, Kansabel, Kunkuri, Jashpur, Lodam, Manjhatoli, Gumla, Lohardaga, Kudu one single trip per day, before the Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (In short 'the RTA'). Upon receiving of application from respondent No.1, concerned authority affixed notice on the notice board calling objections from the existing operators on the route applied for in the application submitted under Section 72 of the Act of 1988 by respondent No.1. Thereafter, the case was fixed for hearing on 16.09.2019, notice of which was issued on 09.09.2019 to respondent No.1. During proceedings of hearing, respondent No.2 submitted his written objection on application for grant of stage carriage permit submitted by respondent No.1 alleging that the route applied 4 for by respondent No.1 is an inter State route of 400 km distance, which should be operated only as "express service", but respondent no.1 proposed normal service time cycle seeking stoppage between 15 to 30 km, which is not correct. Respondent No.3 and 4 have also raised similar objection. The RTA upon hearing the applicant, objectors and also considering their objections had dismissed the application observing that there is 10-minute gap between the proposed timing with the passenger vehicles operated by the objectors. Operating passenger vehicles at such short intervals could lead to unnecessary competition and accidents, rather than providing convenience to the general public.
5. The order passed by the RTA, Raipur was put to challenge in an appeal before the STAT and the Appellate Tribunal upon considering the submission made by learned counsel for respective parties as also taking note of the decision in case of Mithilesh Garg Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1992 SC 443, in Jagdip Singh Vs. Jagir Chand & Anr. reported in (2001) 8 SCC 437 and in case of Manish Travels Vs. Regional Transport Authority, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Chh 684, allowed the appeal in part, remitted back the matter to the RTA with the direction (i) to issue desired permit to applicant/appellant on the proposed inter-state route with proposed time cycle within 30 days, (ii) It is not expected from the RTA to publish notice time and again and to hear 5 them again and (iii) directed the parties to appear before the RTA on 07.02.2022.
6. Learned counsel for State/petitioner would submit that the learned STAT erred in observing that the time cycle proposed by respondent No.1 for running the vehicle is in accordance with Rule 70-B of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 (In short 'the Rules, 1994'). The STAT failed to consider that there is mandatory requirements for Permit Granting Authority to consider the stoppage, halting time of en-route station between two vehicle i.e. existing bus operators and applicant proposing for running bus on the said route. It is contended that the STAT has not considered the fact that whether grant of short time gap between two buses would provide inconvenience to the public wanted to travel on the vehicle of the said route, whether there is any demand by NGO or public representatives to ply more buses within the said particular hours between two destinations. It also failed to consider before arriving to the conclusion that time mentioned in the time cycle applied for by respondent No.1 is not in accordance with Rules 70-B of the Rules, 1994 and has held that time table as proposed to be reasonable overlooking the objections raised by existing bus operators on the said route. It is further contended that the STAT erred in observing that there is no provision for hearing of the objection of existing bus operators and the order in appeal is passed without considering the 6 objection raised by existing bus operators and therefore, the order passed by the STAT is bad-in-law. When STAT came to conclusion that the RTA has not properly evaluated the provisions of Section 70-B of the Rules, 1994 and Section 116 and 112 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 then the STAT ought to have remitted back the case/application for considering afresh by RTA. The STAT ought to have minutely examined the provisions of Rule 70-B of the Rules, 1994, wherein it is specified as to what would be the consideration by the RTA/Permit Granting Authority at the time of considering the application for grant of permit or amending in the timing of permit. The provisions in this regard has not considered by the STAT in proper manner.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that the order passed by the STAT is in accordance with the provisions of law. He contended that after amendment brought in the Act of 1988, the Central Government has liberalized the procedure for grant of permit. There is no provision for issuing the notice and giving opportunity of hearing to the affected bus operators. He also contended that time schedule mentioned in the application is not to be looked into. Plying more buses will facilitate the public at large more. Learned STAT has correctly made an observation in the concluding paragraph of the impugned order that it is not required for publication of 7 notice with respect to the application for grant of stage carriage permit. The Tribunal has discussed about the requirements of provision of Rule 70-B of the Rules, 1994 and further that RTA failed to take note of the provisions under Rule 70-B of the Rules, 1994 and Section 112 and 116 of the Act, 1988 in appropriate manner. The STAT itself is having all the powers and jurisdiction to grant license, therefore, after setting aside the order of RTA case is remitted back to RTA with a direction to issue the permit in favour of petitioner, which does not call for any interference. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision in case of Full Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh reported in case of Surendra Mohan Chaurasiya Vs. State Transport Appellate Authority, Gwalior & Ors., reported in AIR 1970 MP 230, in case of Manish Travels, Durg & Ors. Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Bastar Place Jagdalpur & Ors., reported in AIR 2019 Chh. 29 and in case of Mithlesh Garg Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 443 and prays for issuance of direction to RTA to comply with the order passed by the STAT.
8. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record.
9. Respondent No.1 submitted an application for grant of permit to ply the vehicle in between Raigarh to Ranchi via Gharghoda, Dharamjaigarh, Pathalgaon, Ludeg, Kansabel, 8 Kunkuri, Jashpur, Lodam, Manjhatoli, Gumla, Lohardaga, Kudu one single trip per day, before the Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. The RTA following the procedure prescribed under the Rules, 1994 had published the notice with respect to submission of application by respondent No.1 on the said route. Based upon which, respondent No.2 - Vijay Kumar Garg, respondent No.-3 M/s. Ambika Transport and respondent No.4- Chhabda Bus Service raised an objection on the timings/time table as proposed by respondent No.1. The RTA in its order dated 30.10.2019 has considered that time gap between two vehicle, one of the objector and other of applicant is on some place is less than 10 minutes or 5 minutes and observed that applicant has not submitted time cycle in the application for grant of permit for plying his vehicle within the time gap of 10 to 15 minutes and time difference proposed 10 minutes which will cause inconvenience to passengers and there will be chances of unhealthy competition and accident.
10. The State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 65 of the Act of 1988 have brought in Rules 70-B by way of amendment in the Rules, 1994. This amendment came into force w.e.f. 8.07.2014. Perusal of the aforementioned provisions under Rule 70-B would show that entire facts are required to be considered including the necessity of plying the vehicle, fixation of frequency, category of road, speed of stage 9 carriages of different class of vehicles like ordinary stage carriage, ordinary express stage carriage, deluxe bus, deluxe express bus and night service bus. Stoppages and halting time for stage carriages and further the procedure for determination of time cycle are also provided.
11. Under Rule 70-B, fixation of frequency of vehicle is specified.
In the said provision, 'frequency' has been further defined to be "interval of timings between two services on a route". It further mentions that at the time of fixation of frequency necessity of service during peak hours of traffic and lean hours of traffic on a particular route and any other relevant matters that the authority desires to consider. Under the provision of Rule 70-B, it envisages that Permit Granting Authority shall categories the road on the basis of density of traffic and it is categories as (a) high density traffic road, (b) medium density traffic road and (c) low density traffic road. Further "Road" is also specified to be road for the purpose of this cause, means any highway from one point to another as considered necessary by the Permit Granting Authority on which several different routes overlap or otherwise..
12. 70-B (3) provides for speed of stage carriages regarding time cycle and it is prescribed looking to the category of stage carriages to be Ordinary Stage Carriage, Ordinary Express Stage Carriage, Deluxe Bus, Deluxe Express bus and Night Service bus. Further the stoppages and halting time for stage 10 carriages are also prescribed under Rule 70-B (4). The RTA in its order has specifically given observation that applicant has not submitted application/time table for plying vehicle on the road between Raigarh to Ranchi as mentioned above maintaining the time gap from 10 to 15 minutes and time prescribed is less than that.
13. Rule 70-B is brought in by way of amendment in exercise of powers as provided under Section 212 of the Act, 1988. The heading of which is "Publication, commencement and laying of rules and notifications. The STAT has set-aside the order passed by the RTA observing that the RTA has held that proposed time cycle by respondent No.1 is in violation of the Rules 70-B. The said finding recorded by the STAT in fact is only cursory without considering the discussions of RTA in an appropriate manner. It is not in dispute that RTA has to consider all the relevant factors as provided under Rule 70-B of the Rules, 1994, which includes the frequency, time gap looking to the category/grade of road, speed of stage carriages as also stoppage. The RTA in its order dated 30.10.2019 has clearly made an observation that proposed time cycle is not made maintaining the time gap of 10 to 15 minutes which clearly shows that RTO considered the relevant provision under Rule 70-B of Rules, 1994. The Tribunal further erred in concluding that even if there is difference of 5 to 10 minutes between the proposed time cycle with time cycle of 11 existing bus owner then also it will not amount to unhealthy competition and there may be no chances of accident and further gone to the extent that even if proposed time cycle is found to be of less time gap between existing bus owner and applicant seeking fresh permit then also it cannot be treated as a ground to refuse to grant permit. The said finding and observation of the Tribunal is wholly contrary to the rules framed by the State Government in this regard.
14. The Tribunal while coming to the above conclusion has failed to take note of the clauses under Section 70-B. Reading the entire provision of Rule 70-B would show that what is the object behind incorporating the Rule 70-B by way of amendment under the Rules, 1994 in the year 2014. It is for the Courts and Tribunals to understand the intent behind envisaging any provision under the statute and it is to be interpreted to in a manner achieve the purpose behind incorporating the said provision. When the legislature find it appropriate to regulate timing of stage carriage permit after liberlization of permit policy by way of the Act, 1988, each sub- rule and the words mentioned therein has to be given the effective meaning.
15. For the aforementioned reasons, finding recorded by STAT that even if there is less time gap between the proposed time table and timing on which the existing bus operators are running/operating their buses is not a ground for denying the 12 permit, in the opinion of this Court is contrary to the provisions of Rule 70-B of the Rules, 1994 and the object sought to be achieved by incorporating the said provision under Rules, 1994 by way of amendment and therefore, the order passed by the STAT is not sustainable.
16. Perusal of the rules as discussed above as provided for fixation of frequency keeping in mind the necessity of service during peak hours of traffic and lean hours of traffic on a particular route. Further it provides for Permit Granting Authority also to consider the time cycle proposed keeping in mind the categories of the road where it is high density traffic road, medium density traffic road or low density traffic road. The said consideration is for the purpose of considering the time gap between two vehicles running on the said route, as also the speed of stage carriages regarding time cycle considering the nature and category of the vehicle running on the said route like Ordinary Stage Carriage, Ordinary Express Stage Carriage, Deluxe bus, Deluxe Express bus, Nigh Service bus. The RTA have mentioned that applicant has not proposed time gap in between 10 to 15 minutes and respondent/applicant has not submitted amended timings, in the opinion of this Court the matter can be remitted back to the RTA for considering the application afresh keeping in mind the relevant clauses under Rule 70-B of the Rules, 1994 dealing with each type of stage carriage, type of road, halting 13 time etc. and if the RTA comes to conclusion that time cycle proposed is not feasible in view of the provisions under Rule 70-B of the Rules, 1994 then the RTA shall grant an opportunity to applicant/respondent No.1 to submit amended time cycle and thereafter to consider the same in accordance with provisions of Rule 70-B of the Rules, 1994.
17. The decision which is relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No.1 does not deal with the provision like Rule 70- B as it has been incorporated in the Rules, 1994 by way of an amendment in the year 2014. The decision of Division Bench relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No.1 in case of Manish Travels Durg (supra) consideration in that case was an order passed by RTA on 17.07.2009 and the order of STAT dated 09.03.2011 to fix the time limit for frequency of buses on the date of passing of the order of the RTA, there was no provision like Rule 70-B under the Rules, 1994 as it has been brought in by way of amendment in the year 2014 and therefore, in the opinion of this Court the said decision relied upon is distinguishable on facts.
18. For the forgoing discussion made here-in-above, WP(C) No. 2664 of 2022 filed by State-petitioner is allowed in part case is remitted back to consider the application for grant of permit submitted by respondent No.1 afresh as observed above in paragraph No.16. The exercise shall be completed expeditiously. In view of the order passed in WP(C) No. 2664 14 of 2022, filed by State, no separate order in WP(C) No.1737 of 2022 is required to be passed and it is hereby disposed of.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram