Delhi High Court
Kashmir Singh vs State Transport Authority And ... on 13 November, 2002
Author: M Sarin
Bench: M Sarin
JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Rule.
With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.
2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking quashing of the order dated 16.5.2001, passed by the Commissioner (Transport) STA, by which the special permit in respect of Bus No. DL-IP-A-3291, issued in favor of respondent No. 3, Jagbir Singh was cancelled. Petitioner also seeks direction for making the said order available to him.
3. The facts, as set out by the petitioner, are as under:-
(i) Petitioner in the month of September, 1999 entered into an agreement with respondent No. 3, Mr. Jagbir Singh, the original holder of permit No. STA/EX DTC/0073/93 in respect of Bus No. DL-IP-A-3291. Petitioner purchased the vehicle as well as the permit from respondent No. 3. It is the petitioner's case that total consideration of Rs. 7,67,000/-, which included an amount of Rs. 2,67,000/- for permit was paid. Petitioner states that respondent No. 3 turned dishonest and did not take steps fro seeking transfer of the permit in favor of the petitioner. Disputes arose between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 commenced causing obstruction in running and playing of the bus by the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 also started complaining to the concerned authorities. In these circumstances, petitioner was led to file a civil suit bearing No.728/2000 for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction to seek a restraint on the respondent No.3 from interfering with plying of the vehicle. The interim order, restraining respondent No.3 from dis-possessing the petitioner of the bus was passed. In the said suit, STA had also been imp leaded as a party. A declaration had also been sought by the petitioner that he was the rightful owner of the bus and permit. It appears that on the complaint of respondent No.3, bus was challenged and impounded also and they were proceeded against before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Petitioner had got the vehicle released. Petitioner claims to have also made a booking for conversion to CNG. Petitioner also complained that he kept on paying DTC stands and other charges to respondent No. 3, who failed to deposit the same with the authorities.
(ii) Petitioner also filed another civil suit, seeking an injunction against the STA from revoking special permit in respect of the bus. Respondent/STA filed reply in the said proceedings, stating that proceedings under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act have already been initiated against respondent No. 3 i.e. the original permit holder. In fact, it is the petitioner's own case that respondent No. 3 failed to take any steps for transfer of the vehicle in favor of the petitioner under Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. No application or record of any communication, showing that petitioner applied under Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been produced before the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempts to urge that the relief being sought in the civil court was in respect of injunction against respondent No. 3. Nevertheless, it cannot be lost sight that the petitioner was also seeking a declaration that he is the rightful owner of the permit, which would substantially be the same relief as is sought in the present petition.
5. Keeping these facts in mind and the observations of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India reported at (1998) 1 SCC 676, the permit is liable to be cancelled by the authorities for the unauthorised transfer. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the relevant passage from M.C. Mehta's case, which is as under:-
"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 consequences. We direct authorities not to renew any permit which has been or is being used by any person other than the original grantee, without the express prior permission of the grantee."
In these circumstances, respondent/authorities cannot be faulted with for passing the order of cancellation of the permit. Moreover, it is also not a fit case to be entertained in the exercise of writ jurisdiction in view of the suits filed in the civil forum by the petitioner.
In view of the above and considering the view already taken by this Bench in CW.No. 5516/2000 titled Rati Ram v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. decided on 7.11.2002, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.
