Allowed

Kanker Roadways v. State Transport App.Tri.and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC9 Jul 2014WP227/63/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench allowed this Writ Petition under Article 227. The Court held that upon finding the Regional Transport Authority order was interpolated, the Tribunal erred in directing corrections and issuing a fresh permit instead of setting aside the entire proceedings and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The directions of the Tribunal directing issuance of fresh permit by making corrections in the order of the RTA are set aside; proceedings remanded to RTA to consider the application afresh.

Kanker Roadways Vs State Transport App.Tri.and Ors. — Specific Performance | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

liw/'

¶2

i'tR^sB'
<br>C . ^ 1 O /

¶3

£3 oflQ^^^I.

¶4

(C.G.) through its , Preetam Singf'

¶5

^
^
.^ '^ A
^.•°''-^11'''
n.'^T^*1'
^

Lines Raipur(C.G.)

(^isAT ^pAiccJ—

D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur

¶10

2.
/

¶11

us Stand, Rajasthan Lodged, >ur, Baster (C.G.)

¶12

¶13

y/v
S &^^ i
§ t^5efe, '""% 1
^ R 3
'%^%^
^"

¶14

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR

¶15

Sinflle Bench: Hon'ble ShrLManindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

¶16

Writ Petition (227) No. 63/2012

Petitioner

Kanker Roadways

Versus

Respondents

State Transport Appellate Tribunal & others

¶22

(Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)

¶23

Present: - Shri Shailendra Bajpai, counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State.

¶25

ORALORDER

¶26

(Passed on 09/07/2014)

¶27

This petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India is preferred against order dated 28/04/11 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) whereby the revision of the petitioner has been partly allowed issuing fresh permit in favour of respondentNo.4 by appropriate correction regarding time of plying of vehicle.

¶28

Respondent No.4 had applied for grant of change of time for vehicle bearing registration no.C.G.10/ZA/0110 before respondent No.2. Certain objections including objections of the petitioner were made but the RTA rejected those objections and granted permit in favour of respondent No.4.

¶29

(.3

¶30

Aggrieved by grant of permit to respondent No.4, the petitioner approached the STAT. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal though accepted one of the grounds relating to interpolation of the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) on 26/09/2008, other grounds were rejected. The permit granted in favour of respondent No.4 was quashed with a direction to RTA to issue fresh permit with change of time of plying vehicle. It is this order, which is under challenge in this petition.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that once the Tribunal found that the order passed by the RTA was interpolated, it ought not to have directed issuance offresh permit in favour of respondent No.4 on any modified time schedule. Next submission is that though on the date of submission of application i.e. 01/03/2007, prescribed fee was Rs.1,000/-, on the date of consideration of application, the fee was enhanced to Rs.1,500/- vide notification dated 31/05/2008. Therefore, respondent No.4 was obliged to pay further amount of Rs.500/- and in the absence of any such payment made, the application was liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Esskey Roadways (Firm) Vs. Anandha Krishnan Bus Service, (1994) 6 SCC 71. Third contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 4 applied for grant of permit in respect of vehicle bearing no.CG.10/ZA/0110 but paid fee in the name of other vehicle bearing

¶32

TF~;

¶33

¶34

registration No.CG.17/F1288, Therefore, the application was liable to be rejected. Lastly, it is contended that the vehicle No.CGIO/ZA/0110 was leased out to one Prema Yadav, holder of permanent permit for plying vehicle on the route Bhanupratappur to Bailadila. On the date of passing of the order, the vehicle was not in possession of respondent No. 4 but it was actually being operated by Prema Yadav. Therefore, on the date of consideration, respondent No. 4 was no longer owner for the purposes of Motor Vehicle Act. The respondent No.4 suppressed this material fact and on this ground, the application was liable to be rejected. Reliance has been placed^onthe judgment^{of theDivisionBenchoftheHighCourtofMadhya} Pradesh in the case of Padam Chand Gupta v. State Transport Authority, 2014 (2) JLJ 162.

¶35

Per contra, the submissionof learned State counsel is that the interpolation in the original order of RTA was found only in respect of time schedule. Therefore, the Trjbunal did not commit any illegality directing RTA to carry out necessary correction in the order of grant of permit and issue fresh permit on a modified time schedule. The application was filed on 01/03/2007 and on that day, prescribed fee was only Rs.1,000/-. Enhancement of fee vide notification dated 31/05/2008 was not retrospective. Further submission is that the petitioner has made contradictory statement in this case before the Court and what was stated by it before the Tribunal with regard to number of the vehicle in respect of

¶36

which fee was paid. As far as last submission is concerned, learned State counsel submits that as the petitioner's application filed on 1/03/07 remained pending without any decision, the petitioner gave his vehicle purely on temporary basis to Prema Yadav, another holder of permit for a limited period which is permissible under Section 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Merely because, respondent's vehicle, on the date of consideration, was being plied under a purely temporary arrangement, he did not cease to be owner.

¶37

After going through the order passed by the Tribunal, 1 find that the Tribunal recorded categoric finding of fact that the order passed by the authority was interpolated. A detailed finding has been recorded by the Tribunal in this regard in para 10, 11 & 12. Having recorded a specific finding of interpolation in the order of the authority, the only course open for the Tribunal was to set aside entire proceedings and remand the matter for consideration afresh by the transport authority. The Tribunal, however, issued direction by directing necessary correction to be made in the order as also in the permit issued in favour of respondent No.4.

¶38

In the considered opinion of this Court, if the Tribunal had found the order interpolated, the entire order and proceedings were liable to be set aside and the proper course of action in such case should have been to seod the matter back for proper consideration to the transport authority in

¶39

¶40

¶41

fairness to all the parties including the applicant. It is a different matter as to who was responsible for this interpolation and it will become clear only after proper enquiry is made as directed by the Tribunal. But then, the sanctity of proceedings having been impeached on such a finding, it was not proper for the Tribunal to have directed the Regional Transport Authority to act upon the order with certain corrections and modifications and to direct issuance of fresh permit with necessary corrections and modifications.

¶42

In view of the above finding, 1 am not inclined to take into consideration any other ground raised in this petition and those grounds would be considered in appropriate proceedings.

¶43

In view of the above, the order of the Tribunal to be extent it directs issuance of fresh permit by making corrections in the order of the RTA, is set aside. The entire proceedings leading to issuance of order dated 26/09/08 is declared illegal and the matter is remanded back to the RTA to consider the application of the respondent No.4 afresh in accordance with law. It will be open for all the parties/objectors to raise such grounds which are available under the law in those proceedings.

¶44

Learned State counsel has brought to the notice of the Court that during the pendency of the petition, the period for which permission was

¶45

(?^

¶46

granted,^{hasalreadybeenexpired.} In that view of the matter, it is made clear that it will not be necessary for the RTA to draw fresh proceedings if no fresh application for renewal is filed by respondent No.4. However, if it is found that respondent No.4 intends renewal of the case based on earlier order dated 29/08/08, no renewal shall be granted unless proper

¶47

proceedings, as directed by this Court are drawn.

¶48