Rati Ram vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1933 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. Petitioner by this writ petition seeks quashing of the order of the STA Board communicated to the petitioner vide letter No. F.STA/Misc./2000-2107 dated 21.6.2000, by which the STA Board of the respondent cancelled the permit granted to the petitioner bearing No. SC/3000/VE/0068/91 in respect of bus No. DL-I-P-2028.

3. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents for extension/renewal of the permit.

4. Petitioner had been granted a permanent stage carriage permit, under the scheme by which 3000 such permits were granted in the year 1991. The permit was intended to be for 5 year period, subject to further renewals. However, the respondents kept on renewing the same for lesser duration, resulting in its extension up to 1.10.1999. The permit is purported to have been cancelled by the respondents by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner had transferred the permit in favor of the one Gulab Singh. Respondents relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. U.O.I. , resorted to cancellation of the permit due to the said unauthorised transfer.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had in the year 1997, issued only a power of attorney, which enabled the attorney to operate the bus, under the said permit on behalf of the petitioner. As differences had arisen with the attorney, the petitioner revoked the power of attorney some time in the year 1998. She claims that differences were resolved and an agreement recording the settlement was produced before the STA Board during the hearing. Ms. Rani Chabra claims that as per the agreement the disputes stood resolved. All rights in respect of the permit and the bus vested in the petitioner. Counsel urges that cancellation of the permit is illegal as the grounds specified under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act for cancellation of the permit were non-existent in the instant case. She submits that even if the worst was assumed and it would amount to transfer of permit, without permission which is a mere irregularity under Section 82 of the M.V. Act.

6. Learned counsel next submitted that since it was the petitioner, who had applied for renewal of the permit after expiry on 1.10.1999 and at that stage the dispute with Gulab Singh had ceased to exist, the respondent could not rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court to cancel the permit, as it was not the attorney, who was seeking extension, but the petitioner who has sought extension.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent, who submits that this was a clear case of illegal transfer, squarely covered by the Judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. U.O.I. (Supra). She clarifies that prior to 1.10.1999, it was the attorney holder who use to seek renewal of the permit. Following the Supreme Court judgment, the respondents stopped granting the renewals to the attorney holders and as such the permit was not renewed after 1.10.1999. She further submits that there is nothing on record to show the mutual settlement as claimed by the petitioner was arrived at. Learned counsel submits that it was the petitioner who applied for renewal on 16.6.2002 after renewal had not been granted to the attorney holder on 1.10.1999.

8. I find from the record that execution of the power of attorney, at page 15 by the petitioner is admitted. The said power of attorney is couched in very vide terms and confers almost every right short of formal ownership on the attorney holder. Power of attorney is also stated to be irrevocable. A perusal of Clauses 7, 9, 10, 13, 16, 20 and 21, leave no doubt as to this being a case of transfer of the permit and the vehicle. In fact the true intent of the parties, also gets reflected from the averment made by the petitioner in the writ petition. While claiming that a mutual settlement had taken place between Gulab Singh and petitioner, it is averred in para 8 of the petition:

".....the matter stands settled between the parties and has left no right, title or claim either in bus or on the route permit in favor of Gulab Singh and the petitioner Rati Ram has become the sole, absolute and actual owner of the bus and route permit."

From the foregoing it would be seen that by virtue of the settlement petitioner has become the sole owner. At best it would be a case of retransfer from Gulab Singh to Rati Ram, as contended. The factum of transfer from petitioner, in these circumstances, cannot be dispute. It is also not the case of the petitioner that any consent was applied for or taken.

9. In these circumstances, respondents cannot be faulted with acting in compliance with the directions as given by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta's case (Supra). It is worthwhile to reproduce the same:

"The grantee of a permit cannot (without express prior permission), under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, either transfer his permit or allow some other person to operate a vehicle on this permit. Any such use of permits - which really constitutes a trading in permits - is a patent violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules and would render the permit liable to cancellation, apart from other legal consequence. We direct authorities not to renew any permit which has bee or is being used by any person other than the original grantee, without the express prior permission of the grantee."

10. At this stage, I may notice another argument on behalf of the petitioner It is contended that the power of attorney had been revoked and settlement arrived at and as such ownership of the vehicle now vested with the petitioner. In other words, when the extension was sought petitioner was the owner. From the directions given by the Supreme Court, it would be noticed that the direction to the authorities is not to renew the permit operates not only where the vehicle is being used by the transferee, but also where the vehicle has been so used. It would also covers the case of transfer, where the party seek to have possession restored.

Writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.