State of Chhattisgarh Vs Ali Raza

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 2235 of 2022

¶5

1- State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nava Raipur.

¶6

(The Petitioner No.1 was not a party before the learned State Transport Appeallate 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).

¶7

2- Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

---- Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - Ali Raza S/o. Late Abdul Aziz Aged About 60 Years, R/o. Bharti Nagar, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Shohraab Khan, Bus Operator, Ward No. 10, Rajiv Gandhi Chowk, Talapara Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Pushparaj Sharma, Bus Operator, M.P. Complex, Opposite To Deendayal Garden, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Ravindra Singh Bedi, Bus Operator, Ambikapur, Surguja District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶14

5 - Bhanjan Singh Thakur, Bus Operator, Hitesh Travels, Bus Stand, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶15

6 - Smt. Abha Singh, Bus Operator, Shiv Bus Service, R/o. Near Bus Stand, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶16

---- Respondents

¶17

AND

¶18

WPC No. 1546 of 2022

¶19

1 - Ali Raza S/o Late Shri Abdul Aziz, Aged About 62 Years Occupation Bus Operator, R/o Bhartiya Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

---- Petitioner

2

Versus

1-State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Goverment Of Chhattisgarh, Transport Department, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.)

¶24

2 - The Regional Transport Authority Of Chhattisgarh Atal Nagar, 27 Sector, Naya Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶25

3 - Sohrab Khan,

¶26

Occupation Bus Operator,, R/o Ward No. 10, Rajeev Gandhi Chowk, Talapara Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶27

4 - Pushpraj Sharma,

¶28

Occupation Bus Operator, R/o M.P. Complex, Opposite Deendayal Garden, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶29

5 - Ravindra Singh Bedi,

¶30

Occupation Bus Operator, R/o Near Bus Stand Ambikapur, Sarguja, District Sarguja (C.G.)

¶31

6 - Bhanjan Singh Thakur, Occupation Bus Operator, C/o Hitesh Travells, Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶32

7 - Smt. Abha Singh,

¶33

Occupation Bus Operator, C/o Shiv Bus Service, Near Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶34

---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj,G.A. (In WPC No.2235 of 2022 and respondents No.1 and 2 in WPC No.1546 of 2022)

¶35

For Respondents No.1 (in WPC : Mr. Subodh Pandey, Advocate with No.2235 of 2022 and petitioner Mr. Anshul Ranjan Shrivastava, in WPC No. 1546 of 2022) Advoicate

¶36

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶37

ORDER ON BOARD

¶38

19.07.2024.

¶39

With the consent of the parties, the matters are heard finally.

¶40

Since both the petitions arise out of the same order, they are

¶41

3

¶42

heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

¶43

Petitioners/State has filed W.P. (C) No.2235 of 2022 challenging the order dated 02.11.2021, passed in Appeal No. A-17/2020, whereby the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (In short ‘the STAT’), Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) has allowed the appeal of respondent No.1 -Ali Raza. However, petitioner – Ali Raza has filed W.P.(C) No.1546 of 2022 seeking direction from this Court for compliance of the aforesaid order passed by the STAT, Raipur.

¶44

Facts relevant for disposal of this case are that respondent No.1 (in WPC No.2235 of 2022 and petitioner in WPC No.1546 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. -10G 1433 on route from Bilaspur to Ambikapur via Ratanpur, Pali, Katghora, Paudi, Chotiya, Morga, Lakhanpur, Tara, Udaipur one return 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,

¶45

4

¶46

the case was fixed for hearing on 02.08.2019. During proceeding of hearing, respondent No.2 to 6 submitted their written objections on application for grant of stage carriage permit submitted by respondent No.1. The RTA upon hearing applicant, objectors dismissed the application observing that, if the stage carriage permit is granted with proposed time schedule it may lead to situation of dispute, short time interval of bus operated by applicant and the objectors may have chances of dispute and quarrel and it may lead to unhealthy competition. 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) After hearing the applicant/appellant under the second proviso of Section 80(2) of the Act, if change/amendment of the proposed time cycle is necessary and required under Section 71(2) of the Act, grant opportunity to applicant/appellant to submit amended time table and according to the amended time table to be submitted by applicant/appellant, regional stage carriage permit be issued within a period of 30 days, (ii)

¶47

5

¶48

It is not expected from the RTA to publish notice time and again and to hear them again and (iii) directed the parties to appear before the RTA on 15.11.2021.

¶49

Learned counsel for State/petitioners would submit that order passed by the STAT is bad in law. The learned STAT failed to take note of the, objection raised in its true perspective. The learned STAT had not considered that the permit ought to have been granted only in the interest of public, there is no application or demand for providing more transport facilities on the route applied for with the short interval of five minutes. Learned tribunal ought to have further considered that there was short time gap between various bus at different stations due to which situation of dispute and quarrel may arise and it may lead to unhealthy competition. There may be chances of road accident which also again is not in the interest of public at large. The STAT while disposing of the appeal had remitted back the case with a direction to issue permit within 30 days after receipt of amended time table and not to publish notice of granting opportunity to raise objection to the existing operators, which is bad-in-law. He argued that if the learned STAT concluded that the time table submitted by respondent No.1 in his application under Section 72 of the 1988 Act, needs amendment based on objections, then the STAT should have directed that the amended application with revised timings to be submitted, to be considered in

¶50

6

¶51

accordance with the law. He also contended that the permit is to be granted keeping in mind the interest of the travelling public, in relation to the entire route between the two terminuses. The timings are given to facilitate the travelers and not for favouring one operator at the cost of the other. Referring to the provisions of Section 112 of Act of 1988, it is argued that the speed limit is also one of the consideration for fixing the time table and the RTA considering the application for grant of permit must consider the time table filed by all the affected operators. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Vivek Dwivedi & Ors. Vs. Prem Narain & Ors, reported in AIR 1999 MP 1. It is submitted that according to the amended provisions under Rule 70-B of the C.G. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 (In short ‘the Rules, 1994”), guidelines have been issued as to the point to be considered and determined at the time of considering the application for grant of stage carriage permit and interlude time cycle clash on route to operators of other route. Consideration on the objections of existing bus operators, demand and suggestions from public NGOs and public representatives etc. are necessary, hence, if the Court found that the STAT has rightly remitted back the matter for consideration, then application submitted by respondent No.1 shall be directed to be considered strictly in accordance with law following due procedure prescribed under Rule 70-B of Rules, 1994

¶52

7

¶53

providing opportunity of hearing to applicant and also the affected existing bus operators.

¶54

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for State/petitioners. 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 notice and giving opportunity of hearing to the existing bus operators on the route. He also contended that time schedule mentioned in the application is not the only criteria for grant of permit. Plying more buses will facilitate the public at large more. There is no error in the order passed by the STAT as the Appellate Tribunal can also pass an order granting permit. There is no necessity of further publication of notice and learned Appellate Tribunal has correctly made an observation in the concluding paragraph of the impugned order that it is not required for publication of notice with respect to the application for grant of stage carriage permit. The order is strictly in accordance with the provisions of law, hence, it does not call for any interference. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon Full Bench decision of High Court of Madhya Pradesh 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

¶55

8

¶56

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 dismissal of writ petition filed by State and issuance of direction to RTA to comply with the order passed by the STAT.

¶57

I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶58

Perusal of the order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the RTA would show that the application submitted by respondent No.1 for operating his bus from Bilaspur to Ambikapur was considered. Respondent No.2 to 6 submitted their objections. The RTA after considering and hearing the objections concluded that respondent No.1-applicant had submitted all the relevant necessary documents and further considering that due to short intervals and crossing time, there may be chances of accident, quarrel and unhealthy competition and dismissed the application. Learned STAT while considering the appeal submitted by respondent No.1/appellant, remitted back the case to RTA with a direction to consider the application of applicant/respondent No.1 based on the amended time table to be submitted by applicant therein, to issue a permit within a period of 30 days. Further the Tribunal observed that there is no requirement of publication of notice of application with amended time table.

¶59

The order passed by the STAT of remitting back the matter for

¶60

9

¶61

fresh consideration before RTA is not put to challenge by respondent No.1-applicant.

¶62

So as to appreciate the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.1 that there is no procedure for grant of opportunity of hearing calling objections from existing operators on the route is concerned, the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 65 the Act of 1988 has brought amendment in the C.G. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 and after Rule 70-A, Rule 70-B was added. The said amendment was notified on 08.07.2014. Rule 70-B is extracted below for ready reference :-

¶63

" 70-B. For Regulating Timing of Stage Carriage Permit.-

¶64

(1) Necessity - Subject to the provision of Section 71, for consideration and determination of time cycle on any route regarding grant of application of new Stage Carriage permit or for the change of time cycle of existing permit, the Permit Granting Authority, at the time of consideration and determination of application shall pay special attention to the following points:-

¶65

(a) Providing benefit and facility of traveling public;

¶66

(b) Time cycle interlude and time cycle clash on route to operators of other route;

¶67

(c) Consideration of speed of Stage Carriage services, need of service for short distance or long distance, namely up to 100 - Kms, up to 200 Kms or more than 200 Kms;

¶68

(d) Consideration of necessity of timings between two terminals of the route on the applied timings and whether the applied timings falls in rush hours of traffic or slack hours, benefit to traveling public particularly to remote rural areas and backward areas, etc and also the necessity of "Ordinary Service" or "Express Service" or "Deluxe Service" thereon;

¶69

(e) Necessity of appropriate timings for co-ordination of road and rail transport and connectivity between Tourists places, religious or industrial towns etc, on the route;

¶70

10

¶71

(f) Guidelines of superior Court/authority in respect of timings; and

¶72

(g) Consideration of objections of existing bus operators and demand and suggestions from the public, NGOs, public representatives etc."

¶73

(2) Fixation of frequency -

¶74

(i) For the smooth operation of bus services on routes without litigation, quarrel and un-healthy competition, and for proper interlude of time cycle, it is necessary to maintain discipline there on. In order to achieve this objective, the Permit Granting Authority shall fix the frequency (frequency means interval of timings between two services on a route) of each Regional or Inter-regional route. For determine the frequency between dawn to eleven o'clock in the night, such authority shall pay attention to the following

¶75

(a) Guidelines as mentioned in sub-rule (2);

¶76

(b) Necessity of service during peak hours of traffic and lean hours of traffic on a particular route and

¶77

(c) Any other relevant matters that the Authority desires to consider.

¶78

(ii) Subject to the provision of clause (1), the Permit Granting Authority shall categorize the road on the basis of density of traffic--

¶79

(a) High density traffic road -- means such road on which Stage Carriages are running in large number with close interlude of zero to ten minutes and passenger traffic load is very high.

¶80

(b) Medium density traffic road -- means such road which has medium traffic and on which Stage Carriages are running normally with a gap of 15 to 30 minutes.

¶81

(c) Low density traffic road -- means such road which are neither High density traffic road nor Medium density traffic road.

¶82

Note : "Road" for the purpose of this clause, means any high-way from one point to another as considered necessary by the Permit Granting Authority on which several different routes overlap or otherwise.

¶83

3) Speed of Stage Carriages Regarding Time Cycle -

¶84

Subject to the provision of Section 112 of the Act and for fixation of common timings the speed of Stage Carriage running on a permit in Chhattisgarh State shall be as under--

¶85

(i) Ordinary Stage Carriage - 35 kms per hour;

¶86

11

¶87

(ii) Ordinary Express Stage Carriage - 40 kms per hour;

¶88

(iii) Deluxe bus - 45 kms per hour;

¶89

(iv) Deluxe Express bus - 50 kms per hour; and.

¶90

(v) Night Service bus - 55 kms per hour.

¶91

(4) Stoppages and halting time for stage carriages

¶92

(i) On every stage carriage route, on which other route overlaps partly or fully or otherwise the Permit Granting Authority shall fix the common stoppages and the halting times of all permits granted or to be granted on such route. Such stoppages and halting times may be separately fixed for different types of services i.e. "Ordinary Service", "Express Service" or "Deluxe Service" etc.

¶93

(ii) In every order of grant or renewal of Stage Carriage permit, the Permit Granting Authority, shall specifically indicate the type of service i.e. "Ordinary Service", "Express Service" or "Deluxe Service" etc. and en- route stoppages, of such route, which shall not be varied from the- stoppages and halting times fixed under clause (i) above.

¶94

(iii) Permit Granting Authority, while determining route timings shall allot the stoppages halting times of enroute stations as follows ---

¶95

Stage	Carriers for en-route O	rdinary	Express/ Deluxe
(a)	District Head Quarters	10 minutes	05 minutes
(b)	Tehsil Head Quarters	05 minutes	03 minutes
(c)	Other towns, the population of which is less than ten	03 minutes	02 minutes
	thousand
(d)	Villages	01 minutes	Nill

¶96

Provided that Permit Granting Authority may vary timings, in particular cases, of industrial town, religious place, tourist place or otherwise falling 'on the route, giving reasons for such variation in the order, which shall apply to all services on such route.

¶97

(iv) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (iii), the stoppage timings of halting stations of a night service running more than 200 kms one side, shall be 5 minutes at enroute district head quarters and 15 minutes for mealbreak at any Dhaba or hotel.

¶98

(v) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (1), (ii) and (iii) above. timings of, Inter-State route shall be governed by the provisions of particular Reciprocal Transport Agreement, with the State of Chhattisgarh. However stoppage and halting times may be fixed under sub-rule (6).

¶99

12

¶100

(vi) The Permit Granting Authority shall comply with the provisions-of sub-rule (6) within three months from the date of coming into force of these rules.

¶101

(5) Procedure for determination of time cycle -

¶102

(i) Subject to the provisions of section 71, Permit Granting ‘Authority’ on receipt of an application in respect of grant of Stage Carriage Permit or change of timings thereof shall publish the summary of such application on Office notice board along with date of hearing, for inviting any representation within seven days from such publication.

¶103

(ii) On the appointed date of hearing, the application along with any representation shall be considered by such Authority, in the presence of both the parties.

¶104

(iii) Every Permit Granting Authority shall maintain a computerized route-wise charge of time cycle according to the provisions of this rule.

¶105

(iv) Appropriate order shall be passed considering the provisions of this rule, within time limit fixed by sub-rule (4) of Rule 74."

¶106

(6) Powers of the State Government -

¶107

(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 70-A, and considering the frequent bus accidents, overloading of passengers, quarrel between route operators regarding shortage of interlude of time cycle or any other relevant matters such as need to provide better and comfortable services to passengers, safety of women passengers, congestion of Stage Carriage services of lower seating capacity etc. the State Government may by order fix the higher carrying capacity of buses plying on high density traffic road, mentioned in sub-rule (4) of this rule, under a valid permit. Such registered carrying capacity may not be less than 40 seats in respect of "Ordinary Services" and not less than 35 seats in respect of "Deluxe Services". Time of six months may be allowed by the State Government for replacement of operating vehicles on such notified routes.

¶108

(b) The State Government may grant relaxation, partially or completely by order, in respect of particular route from one or any of the above conditions, giving reasons in writing."

¶109

Rule 70-B provides for the provisions for regulating time of

¶110

stage carriage permit, fixation of frequency, speed of stage carriages regarding time cycle, stoppages and halting time for stage carriages and procedure for determination of time cycle

¶111

13

¶112

and further powers of the State Government under Rule 70-B (1), the guidelines was issued to the Permit Granting Authority at the time of consideration and determination of application and permit is to be granted keeping in mind the benefit and facility to be provided to traveling public, time cycle interlude and time cycle clash on route to operators of other route. Under Sub-rule (1) (g) consideration of objections of the existing bus operators and demand and suggestions from the public, NGOs, public representatives etc.. Further Rule 70-B (5) specifically provides for publication of summary of such application on office notice board along with date of hearing for inviting any representation within seven days from such publication and it is for the concerned authority to consider the representation submitted by any of the objector at the time of hearing of the application for grant of stage carriage permit on the date fixed.

¶113

Considering the provisions prescribed under Rule 70-B of the Rules, 1994 wherein elaborate procedure to be followed by RTA is provided as to how the RTA has to exercise his jurisdiction while considering application for grant of stage carriage permit, to consider the application, publication of summary application granting opportunity to submit objection by the existing operators on the route applied and hearing them, submission of learned counsel for respondent No.1 that once the application for grant of stage carriage permit is

¶114

14

¶115

submitted under Section 72 of the Act of 1988, there is no requirement of publication of notice and hearing on the objection of the existing bus operators is not sustainable being contrary to the Rule 70-B of the Rules, 1994, accordingly, it is repelled.

¶116

So far as the submission of learned counsel for petitioners/State with respect to the nature of direction issued by the STAT is concerned, direction issued by STAT in paragraph No.18 in the order, is contrary to the provisions of law. The STAT while allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.1 in part had considered that the time table as submitted along with application under Section 72 by the respondent No.1 is not feasible and permitted to submit amended timings/time table. When the appellate authority while allowing the appeal concluded that the time cycle mentioned in application requires amendment then RTA has to comply with the provisions of the Rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred under the Act. There may be chances that on the oral proposed timings of the objector or applicant, some other existing bus operators of the route may have to say something and therefore, the direction issued by the STAT allowing the appeal and remitting back the case to RTA to issue permit within 30 days based on the amended time table to be submitted by respondent No.1/applicant without following the procedure of publication of notice on the application, in the

¶117

15

¶118

opinion of this Court is in contravention of Rule 70-B of the Rules, 1994, therefore, the said part of the order passed by the learned STAT is hereby set-aside.

¶119

While affirming the order of remand, it is directed that if the respondent No.1/applicant submits amended time table, in support of the application for grant of stage carriage permit for plying his vehicle bearing No. CG-10 G 1433 on regional route from Bilaspur to Ambikapur, the RTA shall consider it afresh complying with the provisions of Rule 70-B of the Rules, 1994.

¶120

For the forgoing discussion made here-in-above, WP(C) No. 2235 of 2022 filed by State/petitioners is allowed in part as observed above. In view of the order passed in WP(C) No. 2235 of 2022, filed by State, no separate order in WP(C) No.1546 of 2022 is required to be passed and it is hereby disposed of.

¶121

Accordingly, both the petitions stand disposed of in above terms.

¶122

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶123

Balram

State of Chhattisgarh v. Ali Raza

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Ali Raza

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satwan Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Savita Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandrashekhar Vaishnav Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Sail Refractory Unit Vs the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Recovery Officer

Ali Raza Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikrant Carrier Vs Chhattisgarh Police Housing Corporation Limited