Allowed

Pawan Thakur v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Dec 2024CWP/5376/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged validity of temporary bus permits granted to HRTC alleging non-compliance with Section 87 Motor Vehicles Act. Court held resolution demanding permanent service negates 'temporary need' definition and ordered regular permit application.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; temporary permits quashed beyond four months; liberty reserved to submit application for regular permit under Section 80 within two weeks.

Pawan Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others — Landlord and Tenant | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:13847

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.5376 of 2024 Date of Decision: 06.12.2024

¶4

_____________________________________________ Pawan Thakur	________________________ ……...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others	…....Respondents

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

¶7

For the Petitioner: Mr. Kulwant Singh Katoch, Advocate. For the Respondents:Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishat, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4.

¶8

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶9

Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Kulwant Singh Katoch, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that respondent-HRTC has been wrongly granted temporary permit under Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ( hereinafter, ‘the Act ’) to operate its bus on route namely Shimla to Lani via Solan, Rajgarh. 2. It is averred in the petition that merely on the basis of resolution, if any, passed by Gram Panchayat of the area concerned, Regional Transport Authority, on the basis of application, if any, submitted by HRTC could not proceed to grant temporary permit under Section 87 of the Act. While making this Court peruse Section

¶10

2024:HHC:13847

¶11

¶12

87 of the Act, Mr. Kulwant Singh Katoch, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently argued that none of the conditions under which temporary permit can be granted, is fulfilled in the case at hand. He states that on account of issuance of temporary permit by the Regional Transport Authority in favour of HRTC, petitioner herein has been put to huge financial loss because, while issuing temporary permit for the route in question, time table has not been rescheduled.

¶13

Respondents No.1 to 4 have filed reply, wherein it has been stated that under Section 87 of the Act, Regional Transport Authority and State Transport Authority may, without following procedure laid down under Section 80 of the Act, grant permits, for a limited period, which shall not, in any case, exceed four months. Respondent-HRTC in its reply has stated that since its prayer for grant of regular permit under Section 80 of the Act is pending consideration with the competent authority, no illegality can be said to have been committed by Regional Transport Authority, while granting temporary permit in favour of HRTC, enabling it to ply its bus on the route in question.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that though there is no dispute inter se parties that respondent-HRTC at first instance had applied for regular permit under Section 80 of the Act, but since same

¶15

2024:HHC:13847

¶16

¶17

is pending adjudication, Regional Transport Authority on the request having made by General Manager, HRTC, proceeded to grant temporary permit under Section 87 of the Act.

¶18

At this stage, it would be apt to take note of Section 87 of the Act, which reads as under:

¶19

87. Temporary permits. -

¶20

(1) A Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority may without following the procedure laid down in section 80, grant permits, to be effective for a limited period which shall, not in any case exceed four months, to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily

¶21

(a) for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings, or

¶22

(b) for the purposes of a seasonal business, or

¶23

(c) to meet a particular temporary need, or

¶24

(d) pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit,and may attach to any such permit such condition as it may think fit:

¶25

Provided that a Regional Transport Authority or, as the case may be, State Transport Authority may, in the case of goods carriages, under the circumstances of an exceptional nature, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, grant a permit for a period exceeding four months, but not exceeding one year.

¶26

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a temporary permit may be granted thereunder in respect of any route or area where

¶27

2024:HHC:13847

¶28

¶29

(i) no permit could be issued under section 72 or section 74 or section 76 or section 79 in respect of that route or area by reason of an order of a Court or other competent authority restraining the issue of the same, for a period not exceeding the period for which the issue of the permit has been so restrained; or

¶30

(ii) as a result of the suspension by a Court or other competent authority of the permit of any vehicle in respect of that route or area, there is no transport vehicle of the same class with a valid permit in respect of that route or area, or there is no adequate number of such vehicles in respect of that route or area, for a period not exceeding the period of such suspension:

¶31

Provided that the number of transport vehicles in respect of which temporary permits are so granted shall not exceed the number of vehicles in respect of which the issue of the permits have been restrained or, as the case may be, the permit has been suspended.

¶32

Careful perusal of aforesaid provision of law clearly suggests that a Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority, without following due procedure as laid down under Section 80 of the Act, can proceed to grant route permit for a limited period, which in any eventuality, shall not exceed four months, authorizing use of a transport vehicle temporarily for limited purposes, and for aforesaid provision of law, temporary permit can be issued for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings, for the purposes of a seasonal business

¶33

2024:HHC:13847

¶34

¶35

or to meet a particular need. There is also provision of granting temporary permit pending decision on an application for renewal of a permit.

¶36

Admittedly, in the case at hand, there is nothing to suggest that prayer made on behalf of respondent-HRTC to grant temporary permit ever came to be considered by Regional Transport Authority on the ground of conveyance of passengers on any special occasions such as fairs or religious gatherings or for the purpose of a seasonal business, or to meet a particular temporary need, rather General Manager, HRTC having taken note of resolution passed by Gram Panchayat of the area concerned, requested Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permit to meet temporary need of the public.

¶37

Since, it is not in dispute that prior to making application, if any, by respondent-HRTC under Section 87 of the Act to Regional Transport Authority, bus on the route was being plied by petitioner herein, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Kulwant Singh Katoch, learned counsel representing the petitioner that mere passing of a resolution, if any, by Gram Panchayat of the area concerned may not be sufficient to conclude a “temporary need” because bare perusal of resolution placed on record clearly reveals that demand has been made to provide bus on the route on permanent basis. Once request

¶38

2024:HHC:13847

¶39

¶40

for plying bus on the route on permanent basis was received by HRTC, it ought to have applied under Section 80 of the Act for regular permit.

¶41

In the case at hand, respondent-HRTC was granted temporary permit to ply its bus on the route in question on 30.10.2023 and since then, same is being renewed after every four months. Since there is a specific provision under Section 87 of the Act to issue temporary permit for four months, repeated applications are being filed by respondent-HRTC for temporary permit, which prayer is being mechanically accepted by Regional Transport Authority without application of mind. If the provisions contained under Section 87 of the Act are read in their entirety, it clearly states that temporary permit, in any eventuality, cannot exceed four months, that too in contingencies, as contained in the provision itself.

¶42

No doubt, perusal of resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat of the area concerned suggests that there is a need of regular bus service on the route concerned but for that purpose respondent-HRTC is required to follow due procedure as provided under Section 80 of the Act, but it cannot be permitted to ply its bus on the route in question, on the basis of temporary permit, which otherwise cannot be granted beyond the period of four months. Though in the case at hand, there is nothing on record to show that respondent-HRTC has submitted an application under Section 80 of

¶43

2024:HHC:13847

¶44

¶45

the Act for grant of regular permit, but taking note of requirement of bus on the route in question, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the respondent-HRTC to submit application for regular permit in terms of Section 80 of the Act, within a period of two weeks, enabling Regional Transport Authority to decide the same in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two weeks thereafter. Ordered accordingly.

¶46

Since this Court is convinced that temporary route permit granted in favour of the HRTC is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 87 of the Act, no such prayer, if any made, shall be entertained beyond 21.01.2025, up to which period, permission already stands granted in favour of respondent-HRTC.

¶47

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶48

December 06, 2024 Rajeev Raturi

¶49

(Sandeep Sharma),

¶50

Judge

Pawan Thakur v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Thakur v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amar Dev Vs State of Hp and Others

M/S R.D. Enterprises Vs State of Hp and Others

Devi Ram Vs Rohan Chand Thakur and Another

M/S Neeraj Singh and Co. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Chemists and Druggists Association Vs State of Hp and Others

State of Hp and Others Vs Gita Ram Tegta