Sudhir Singh Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 12

¶2

2024:CGHC:39738

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

Reserved for Order on : 30.08.2024

¶6

Order Passed on : 07/10/2024

¶7

WPC No. 2696 of 2022

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.) ( 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)

¶9

2 - Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

---- Petitioners

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - Ishtiaq Ahmad S/o Shri Rafique Ahmad Aged About 56 Years Rajiv Gandhi Chowk, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

2 - Yashwant Singh Thakur S/o Rajendra Singh Thakur, Bus Operator, Maharana Pratap Ward, Kawardha, Dist. Kawardha (C.G.)

¶14

3 - Sudhir Singh S/o Shri Mata Baksha Singh, Bus Operator (Sharda Travels), Office No. 08 Second Floor, C.L.C. Plaza Mangla Chowk, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

WPC No. 555 of 2022

¶17

1 - Sudhir Singh S/o Shri Mata Baksh Singh Aged About 49 Years Occupation Bus Operator (Sharda Travells), R/o Office No. 8, Ii Floor, Clc Plaza, Mangala Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶18

---- Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Transport Department, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh),

¶21

2 / 12

¶22

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

¶23

3 - Ishteyaq Ahmad S/o Shri Rafiq Ahmad Aged About 56 Years By Occupation Bus Operator, R/o Rajeev Gandhi Chowk, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶24

4 - Yashwant Singh Thakur S/o Shri Rajendra Singh Thakur By Occupation Bus Operator, Maharana Pratap Ward, Kawardha, District Kawardha (Chhattisgarh)

¶25

---- Respondents For Petitioners/State (in WPC No. : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy.A.G. 2696 of 2022 and Res. No.1 & 2/State in WPC No.555 of 2022 For Petitioner (in WPC No. 555 of : Mr. Shailendra Bajpai, Advocate 2022 and Respondent No.3 in WPC No. 2696 of 2022 For Respondent No.3 in WPC No. : Mr. Brijesh Dubey and Mr. Anshul 2696 of 2022 and in WPC No. 555 Ranjan Shrivastava, Advocates of 2022)

¶26

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶27

CAV ORDER

¶28

Since both the petitions arise out of the same order, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

¶29

Petitioners/State in W.P. (C) No.2696 of 2022 and petitioner in W.P.(C) No.555 of 2022 have filed these petitions challenging the order dated 23.12.2021, passed in Appeal No. A-42/2021, whereby the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (In short ‘the STAT’), Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) has allowed the appeal of respondent No.1 – Ishtiaq Ahmad.

¶30

3 / 12

¶31

Facts relevant for disposal of this case are that Ishtiaq Ahmad/respondent No.1 (in WPC No.2696 of 2022) 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. -10K 9115 on route from Bilaspur to Pandariya via Takhatpur, Mungeli 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, the case was fixed for hearing on 28.02.2020. During proceeding of hearing, Yashwant Singh Thakur- respondent No.2 and Sudhir Singh (petitioner in WPC No.555 of 2022) 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 on the route applied for by applicant, permit was previously granted to Sudhir Singh (petitioner in WPC No. 555 of 2022) under permit number 1511/B/03, which has been operating continuously since 2003. It is further observed that there is no application or demand for providing more transport facilities on the route applied for with the short interval of 10 minutes, 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 and rejected the application.

¶32

4 / 12

¶33

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 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 them again and (iii) directed the parties to appear before the RTA on 07.01.2022.

¶34

Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy.A.G. appearing on behalf of State/petitioners (in WPC No.2696 of 2022) would submit that order passed by the STAT is bad in law. 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 noncompliance of 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. It also failed to consider before arriving to the conclusion that

¶35

5 / 12

¶36

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 cycle as proposed to be reasonable overlooking the objections raised by existing bus operators on the said route.

¶37

Mr. Shailendra Bajpai, learned counsel for petitioner in WPC No. 555 of 2022 would submit that the impugned order of remand with direction to issue desired permit to respondent No.3 passed by the STAT is bad in law. The order impugned directing RTA to issue desired permit is not in accordance with the Rule 70-B of the Rules, 1994. It is contended that the RTA has rightly rejected the incomplete and invalid application filed by respondent No.3/Istiyak Ahmad for grant of permit. While applying for grant of permit, respondent No.3 has not provided all relevant and necessary information along with his application for grant of permit. The learned STAT has also failed to consider the objection raised by petitioner that application submitted for grant of permit was incomplete and not supported by relevant documents. It is contended that while considering the appeal, the learned STAT has also failed to consider the provisions of Rule 72 (3) of the Rules, 1994. He placed reliance upon decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Shailesh Vijayvargiya Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. in WP no 7081 of 2014 decided on 09.10.2011, in case of Shivratan Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. in WA No. 706 of 2018 decided on 04.10.2018, decision in case of Vivek Dwivedi Vs. Prem Narayan & Ors., reported in AIR 1999 MP 1, decision in case of Chandrabhan Thakur Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (WP No.15152 of 2013), decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Arvind Kumar Vs. Nand Kishore

¶38

6 / 12

¶39

& Ors. reported in AIR 1968 SC 1227, decision in case of M/s. Kanan Motors (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s. Prabhu Transports (P) Ltd., reported in AIR 1975 SC 123 .

¶40

Mr. Brajesh Dubey, learned counsel for respondent- Ishtiaq Ahmad vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioners 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 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 applicant, 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

¶41

7 / 12

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

Perusal of the order of the RTA dated 07.07.2020 enclosed along with WPC No.2696 of 2022 would show that after publication of application for grant of permit for route Bilaspur to Pandariya on notice board, two bus operators have raised objection including one of objector, who is petitioner in WPC No. 555 of 2022. In their objection both the objectors have raised grounds that while submitting application, there is noncompliance of the Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 72 of the Rules, 1994 apart from objection on the short time gap of only 10 minutes at some point between their vehicle earlier plying on the route. The other objector has also raised objection that there is difference of 5 minutes in proposed time cycle and non-compliance of provisions of Sub-rule 3(c) of Rule 72 of the Rules, 1994. In the order, RTA has not discussed anything on the objection raised with respect to non-compliance of Sub-rule 3 of Rules 72 of the Rules, 1994 but has dismissed the application on the ground of short time interval sought by applicant from existing bus operators i.e. objector, in proposed time cycle.

¶45

8 / 12

¶46

In the appeal filed by appellant/applicant, learned STAT has only considered the short time intervals, reasons for which the application was dismissed and held that the State Government has not fixed time interval between two stage carriage on the route by any notification and further observed that even if in the proposed time cycle of applicant’s stage carriage there is difference of time interval of 5 to 10 minutes then also it cannot be considered that there may be chances of unhealthy competition and accident.

¶47

So far as the finding recorded by the STAT that even if there is time interval of 5 to 10 minutes then also it cannot be considered to be unhealthy competition and possibility of accident, is concerned, the State Government has brought in Rule 70-B under the Rules, 1994 by way of amendment, which came into effect from 08.07.2014. 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 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.

¶48

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

¶49

9 / 12

¶50

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.

¶51

Rule 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 carriages are also prescribed under Rule 70-B (4) of the Rules, 1994. The RTA in its order considering the application for grant of permit dated 07.07.2020 has considered the less time interval between two vehicles, however, erroneously observed that short time interval will not be reason for chance of unhealthy competition and accident, which are contrary to the provisions under Rule 70 B of the Rules, 1994.

¶52

The Tribunal while allowing the appeal 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 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

¶53

10 / 12

¶54

provision under the statute and it is to be interpreted in a manner to 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 subrule and the words mentioned therein has to be given the effective meaning.

¶55

Perusal of the rules as discussed above, provides 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 has mentioned that applicant has proposed time gap of 10 minutes and respondent/applicant has not submitted amended time cycle, 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 time etc. directing RTA to 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

¶56

11 / 12

¶57

70-B of the Rules, 1994. Section 71 (2) of the Act, 1988 provides for an opportunity to submit amended time cycle before RTA.

¶58

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 – Ishtiaq Ahmad, 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, at that time 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 decision relied is distinguishable on facts.

¶59

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 permit, in the opinion of this Court is in contravention 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.

¶60

The STAT has not considered the objection raised by objector before the RTA with respect to the non-compliance of the provisions under Sub-rule 3 of Rule 72 of the Rules, 1994. If under the rules, there is

¶61

12 / 12

¶62

requirement to submit information more particularly when word used in the provision under Rule 72 (3) of the Rules, 1994 ‘shall’ then every applicant has to furnish information as specified therein. In absence of not dealing with specific objection raised by objectors before the RTA has erred in deciding the application without dealing with the objection and further more the STAT while allowing the appeal filed by applicant also has not dealt with the specific objection on non-compliance of Sub-rule 3 of Rule 72 of the Rules, 1994.

¶63

For the aforementioned discussions in the opinion of this Court, the order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the STAT is not sustainable accordingly it is set-aside. Further considering that the RTA has not followed the provisions under the Act of 1988 and the Rules, 1994 of providing an opportunity to applicant to submit amended time cycle, the matter is remitted back to the RTA for considering the application afresh complying with the provisions under Rule 70-B of the Rules, 1994 to provide opportunity to applicant to submit amended time cycle and thereafter to pass order afresh dealing with the objections raised by the objectors. The exercise shall be completed expeditiously.

¶64

For the forgoing discussion made here-in-above both the writ petitions are allowed in part.

¶65

Sd Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶66

Balram/ pwn

Sudhir Singh v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Singh v. the State of Chhattisgarh

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

Saheb Ram Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Madhusudan Pradhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ahilya Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santulal Sonkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ishtiaq Ahmad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Ishtiaq Ahmad