Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Smt. Meenu Mishra on 11 July, 2022
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 292 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 Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Joint Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
Anand Mishra S/o Late Shri Jaiprakash Mishra R/o Pratapganj
Ward, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
WA No. 293 of 2022
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of
Transport Mantralaya, Mananadi Bhawan, New Raipur
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan,
New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Joint Secretary Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh,
Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
Anand Mishra S/o Late Shri Jaiprakash Mishra Aged About 40
Years R/o Pratapganj Ward, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur,
Chhattisgarh, District Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
2
WA No. 294 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, Raipur (CG)
3. Joint Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh
Raipur (CG)
---- Petitioner
Versus
Anoop Tiwari S/o Shri S.S. Tiwari, Balaji Ward, Jagdalpur,
District : Bastar (Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondent
WA No. 295 of 2022
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of
Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
2. Reginoal Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan
New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Joint Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh
Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Meenu Mishra W/o Shri Anand Mishra Aged About 35 Years
R/o Pratapganj Ward Jagdalpur District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
3
WA No. 296 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, Raipur (CG)
3. Joint Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh
Raipur (CG)
---- Petitioner
Versus
Sandeep Mishra S/o Late Shri Jaiprakash Mishra R/o Pratapganj
Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
WA No. 297 of 2022
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of
Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh Indrawati Bhawan,
New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Joint Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh,
Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
Sandeep Mishra S/o Late Shri Jaiprakash Mishra Aged About 38
Years R/o Pratapganj Ward Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
4
WA No. 298 of 2022
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of
Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur
Chhattisgarh District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan
New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Joint Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh
Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
Anand Mishra S/o Late Shri Jaiprakash Mishra Aged About 40
Years R/o Pratapganj Ward Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur,
Chhattisgah, District Bastar (Jagdalpur) Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
WA No. 309 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 Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Joint Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
Anand Mishra S/o Late Shri Jaiprakash Mishra R/o Pratapganj
Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
5
For Appellants/State Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Additional
Advocate General
For Respective
Respondents Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Mr. BL Dembra and
Mr. Shivesh Singh, Advocates
DB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Goutam Bhaduri &
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Judgment on Board by Goutam Bhaduri, J.
11/7/2022
1. Heard.
2. The instant bunch of appeals are against the common order
passed by the learned Single Bench on 5.5.2022 in WPC
No.1800/2022 and other connected petitions, whereby, the
petitions filed by the State Authority and private
respondents/Transporters against the order of the State
Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT), which is constituted under
Section 89(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act,
1988"), were dismissed with specific directions.
3. The issue in these writ appeals is similar, therefore, they are
being adjudicated simultaneously.
4. The nucleus of the dispute starts from an application, which was
filed by the Transporters for grant of stage carriage permit in
the month of September 2017. The order of the RTA dated
19.12.2019 would show that after the application for grant of
permit was filed, it could not be decided in accordance with the
Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules 1994 (in short "the Rules,
1994"). As per sub-rule (4) of Rule 74 of the Rules, 1994, the
prescribed time limit for disposal of the application for grant of
stage carriage permit is 60 days. The Rules, 1994 was
promulgated in exercise of powers conferred by sections 28, 38,
65, 95, 96, 107, 111, 138, 159, 176, 211 and 213 of the Act, 1988.
Since the application for stage carriage permit was not decided,
the respondents herein preferred a writ petition before the
High Court, wherein, this Court vide order dated 22.8.2019
directed to dispose of the application filed for stage carriage
permit within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a
copy of the said order. It was upon thereafter, the order dated
19.12.2019 was passed by the RTA, wherein, a direction was
issued that after communication of this order, within a period of
30 days, the Transporters shall obtain the permit and start
plying of the vehicles. The case of the
respondents/Transporters before the learned Single Bench and
the STAT was that this order was not communicated to them.
The order of the learned Single Judge would show that the
issue that the order granting permit dated 19.12.2019 was not
communicated to the Transporters, was not in much dispute.
5. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 74 of the Rules, 1994 prescribes the
procedure, which reads as under :
"74. Procedure on receipt of Permit Application
and Manner of disposal thereof -
(1) xxx
(2) xxx
(3) Transport Authority shall after considering the
application, as per provisions of law, pass an
appropriate order thereon and communicate."
6. A plain reading of the sub-rule (3) of Rule 74 of the Rules, 1994
would show that it is the mandate duty casted upon the
authority to communicate the order of grant of permit. It is
not in much dispute before this Court that the grant of permit
was not communicated to the respondents. In the month of
March 2020, for the first time, the respondents came to know
that the order of grant of permit has been passed in their
favour and thereafter, they applied for issuance of permit.
7. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact, which is recorded
in the order of the learned Single Judge, that the Supreme
Court on 10.1.2022, on a Miscellaneous Application No.21 of
2022 and other connected application, including suo motu writ
petition, extended the period of limitation with respect to
judicial and quasi judicial functions on account of nation-wide
lock-down, which started w.e.f. 25.3.2020. After ease out of
such period, subsequently, the respondent-Transporters applied
for issuance of permit on 17.12.2020 followed by a reminder in
the month of September 2021. Eventually, since no order was
passed, an appeal was filed before the STAT, which came to be
decided by the order dated 29.1.2022, whereby, the STAT
passed a direction to issue permit within a period of 7 days from
the date of the said order and the compliance report was
directed to be filed before the STAT . The said order of the STAT
was subject of challenge before the learned Single Judge, in
different writ petitions. The learned Single Judge after
evaluating all the facts, dismissed the writ petitions, however,
para 11 & 12 of the order of the STAT were deleted, wherein,
the cost was imposed on the concerned officers. However, the
other part of the order passed by the STAT with respect to
compliance of issuance of permit, was maintained. At this
juncture, the appeals have been preferred by the State.
8. Learned Additional Advocate General for the State/appellants
would submit that the order passed by the STAT would be
non est for the reason that no order for refusal of grant of
permit was passed. Section 89(1) of the Act, 1988 only
empowers the STAT to exercise its jurisdiction in case of refusal
of permit. He would further submit that the limitation, on the
basis of the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, cannot
be extended in the facts of the present case, as it was only
confined to judicial and quasi judicial functions. Hence, the
appeal be allowed.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respective respondents
would submit that the series of act would show that there has
been deliberate omission of non issuance of grant of permit.
Learned counsel would further submit that Section 89 of the
Act, 1988 though speaks about appeal on cancellation of permit
but the case of the respondents would be that despite grant of
regular permit, the permit was not issued on papers, therefore,
it would amount to 'refusal' and consequently, the benefit
cannot be extended to the State. Hence, the order of learned
Single Judge is well-merited, which does not call for any
interference.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
documents of the Writ Court and the order passed by the STAT.
11. Rule 74(4) of the Rules, 1994 casts a duty on the Officers of the
concerned Authority to adjudicate an application for grant of
stage carriage permit within a period of 60 days. The facts show
that initially in the month of September 2017, an application
was made by the Transporters for grant of permit. The said
application was not decided within a period of 60 days and as
such, initially, the respondents preferred a writ petition before
this Court, wherein, the learned Single Judge passed an order to
adjudicate the application within a period of 30 days from the
date of receipt of the said order. Upon this, the initial order was
passed by the RTA on 19.12.2019, by which, the permit was
granted, however, the communication was not made, which was
against sub-rule (3) of Rule 74 of the Rules, 1994, which imposes
a duty on the part of the RTA to communicate the order. It is
also obvious that though the orders are passed and shelved,
but, it is not expected from the public at large or the persons,
who are interested, to have knowledge about the order. When
the statutory duties are imposed upon the Authority to do a
work in a certain manner, then, it has to be done in such manner
only. Having not communicated the order passed by the RTA
dated 19.12.2019, there cannot be automatic cancellation of
such order after a period of time. The argument as advanced by
the learned State Counsel that the order would lose its efficacy
after the prescribed period of 30 days is erroneous. We decline
to concur such submissions as the State Authority cannot be
given advantage of their own wrong and it would be travesty of
justice, if such proposition is followed.
12. The facts would show that in the month of March 2020, the
respondents came to know about such order, whereby, the
permit was granted, however, the nation-wide lock down
started from 25.3.2020, which is also reflected in the order of
the learned Single Judge. We further take judicial note of the
fact that the Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21
of 2022 has extended the limitation of judicial and quasi judicial
actions, which naturally would include the present facts of the
case, inasmuch as, the grant of permit would be within the
purview of quasi judicial action, therefore, the time lapsed
passed by during the lock-down cannot run against the
respondents. This would lead us to hold that the application
filed subsequently by the respondents in the month of
December 2020 to issue the physical permit would be within the
legal domain and framework. The order of the STAT would
further show that the reminder of the same was also given in
the month of September 2020 but it remained dormant.
13. Under these circumstances, the respondents approached the
STAT, which is the appellate authority. The submission of the
State that no order has been passed, whereby, the permit has
been refused cannot hold the sway in their favour for the
reason that for all practical purposes, if the physical permit is
not issued despite granting it on papers, which are kept below
the heap of files in a RTA office, then, it would amount to
'refusal'. The grant of physical permit turned into grant of
physical issue of permit would allow the respondent-
Transporters to ply the vehicles and if it is lost in the official files
or not communicated, the effect would be the same that of
refusal. The order of the learned Single Bench and the STAT,
when both are read together would show that without any
rhyme or reason, the benefit of grant of permit was held back
and the Authority chose to issue the limited permit to other
transporters other than the respondents herein, which speaks
at large about the functions.
14. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the
direction given by the STAT, which has been affirmed by the
learned Single Judge, to issue the physical permit within a
period of 7 days.
15. Consequently, all the appeals sans merit, are liable to be and are
hereby dismissed.
16. It is directed that the Officers of the concerned Authority shall
issue physical permit to the respondents within a period of 7
days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In absence
thereof, a copy of the order would be placed in their Service
Books, which would be subject of consideration for their official
discharge of duties.
Sd/- Sd/-
( Goutam Bhaduri) ( Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge Judge
Shyna
