Inderjeet Singh And Anr vs State Of Delhi And Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 2670 Del

9
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       Date of Decision: 24.04.2012

%                               W.P.(C) 719/2011


       INDERJEET SINGH AND ANR                         ..... Petitioner
                       Through:        Mr. Alok Bachawat, Adv.

                       versus


       STATE OF DELHI AND ORS                             ..... Respondent
                       Through:        Mr. Najmi Waziri, Adv for
                                       respondent no.1.
                                       Ms. Rani Chhabra, Adv. for
                                       respondents 3 to 7.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI


VIPIN SANGHI, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek a direction to

respondents 1 and 2 i.e the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and the Delhi State

Transport Authority to cancel the allotment of maxi cab permits

allotted to respondents 3 to 7 for the route - Bhai Mati Dass Chowk

(Fountain) to Shastri Nagar - Route Code No.9101 or any other route.

The petitioner also seeks a mandamus requiring the respondent

authorities to advertise the allotment of the permits of maxi cabs for

public in general.

2. The petitioners state that they are maxi cab permit holders and

operators. Respondents 1 and 2 issue and grant maxi cab permits.

Maxi cabs are contract carriages which have capacity of more than 6

and less than 12 passengers.

3. The case of the petitioners is that in the year 1993, respondent

no.1 floated a scheme for grant of permits for maxi cabs in order to

provide cheap and better public transport in congested areas of Delhi.

Consequently, respondent no.2 invited applications by issuing a public

advertisement for allotment of these 100 permits under the scheme.

The petitioners and other interested persons made their applications

for allotment of these 100 permits under the scheme. Consequently,

100 permits were issued and the petitioners were amongst those to

whom one permit each was allotted. According to the petitioners,

respondent no.3 was made allotment of 10 permits at that stage.

4. The further case of the petitioner is that in the year 2000-2001,

in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court in W.P(C) 13029/85 in

the matter of M.C. Mehta Vs. UOI, respondent no.2 issued a circular

directing maxi cab operators to convert their vehicles to CNG vehicles.

It was also stated that if the vehicles are not so converted, the permits

would not be renewed. The petitioner further states that out of 100

permits, renewal was granted only in respect of 79 permits, upon

conversion to CNG mode. The remaining 21 permits were not renewed

or re- allotted. It is also the petitioner's case that these 21 permits,

which lapsed, remained un-allotted over the years.

5. The further case of the petitioner is that respondents 1 and 2 did

not allot these 21 licensees despite applications being tendered. In

fact, the respondents were not even entertaining the applications

when tendered. The petitioners submit that respondents 1 and 2,

clandestinely, without any prior notice to the general public,

entertained the applications made by respondent nos.3 to 7 for

allotment of the 21 remaining permits. Respondents 3 to 7 all belong

to the same family. Respondent no.3, Sh. Charan Kamal Singh is the

father of respondents 4 to 7. The said respondents made their

applications and each of these respondents have been allotted 4

permits each.

6. The case of the petitioners is that the said respondents are not

even eligible for these permits on their own. It is the case of the

petitioners that respondent no.3, who had earlier been allotted 10

permits initially in the year 1993, had transferred/sold 9 out of the 10

permits allotted to him for consideration. In this background, the

present petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

7. Counter affidavits have been filed by respondents 1 and 2 on the

one hand and respondents 3 to 7 on the other hand. The case of

respondents 1 and 2 in their counter affidavit is that they had floated

a scheme for maxi cab permits in the year 1993 for grant of about 100

permits. In September, 2002, 21 permits were left to be granted. (I

may note that learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 states that

there appears to be a typographical error in the counter affidavit of

respondent nos. 1 and 2, which states that 79 permits were left to be

granted. However, this does not appear to be the position in the light

of the averments made in the writ petition, and the fact that the

respondents 1 and 2 admit to have allotted 20 permits to respondents

3 to 7).

8. Respondents 1 and 2 admit that respondents 3 to 7 have been

allotted 4 permits each, as against their applications for 25 permits

each. The case of the respondent authorities is that the applications of

respondents 3 to 7 were considered in accordance with Section 74 and

related provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also stated that the

letters of intent were issued to respondents 3 to 7 in October 2010,

whereas the petitioners had applied for the same permits in December,

2010 . It is also stated that many other applicants had also applied for

maxi cab permits, subsequent to the grant of letters of intent to

respondents 3 to 7. The further case of respondents 1 and 2 is that

there is no provision in Chapter V of the Motor Vehicles Act which

requires publication or advertisement of vacancies for issue of permits.

Respondents 3 to 7 have been allotted permits in accordance with the

provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, and no provision of the Act, had been

violated.

9. Respondents 1 and 2 are silent about the petitioner's case that

respondent no.3 had initially been allotted 10 permits in the year 1997,

out of which he traded 9 permits.

10. Respondents 3 to 7 in their counter affidavit, however, state that

respondent no.3 had applied for grant of 1 permit, and only 1 permit

was allotted to him in 1997. They further state that since there were

about 21 permits lying un-allotted with the respondent authorities,

they approached the said authorities by applying for the same.

11. Pertinently, they state in para 11 that "the respondent no.3

approached the said transport authority for grant of permit under

vacancies lying unfilled but the respondent State Transport Authority

never paid any heed". They further state that in July 2010, they

applied for grant of permit on the vacancies lying unfilled. Their

applications were received on 07.07.2010 by the respondent State

Transport Authority, but were not considered. They again submitted

their applications on 23.09.2010. It is further stated in para 14 that

since respondent no.3 and his family members had been approaching

the said transport authority repeatedly on 12.10.2010, an order was

passed granting four permits each on different routes to respondents 3

to 7.

12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered

their submissions and the pleadings of the parties, I am inclined to

allow the present writ petition.

13. It is clear from the averments of the petitioner as well as

respondents 3 to 7 that even though 21 maxi cabs licensees' stood

un-allotted in the year 2002, the respondents 1 and 2 did not make

the allotment to the said licensees to the persons who made their

applications for the said purpose for nearly 8 years. Even in the

counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2 they do not state that

applications for allotment of the 21 maxi cabs permits were

entertained after September, 2002 till the time 20 of these permits

were allotted to respondents 3 to 7. The submission of Mr.Waziri that

under the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act , and particularly under

Section 74 of the said Act, there is no requirement that the

respondents should advertise and invite applications for grant of

permits, and therefore, before granting the said 21 permits, the

respondents authorities were not obliged to invite applications cannot

be accepted.

14. Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act only states that on an

application being made to it under Section 73, the Regional Transport

Authority may grant a contract carriage permit in accordance with the

application, or with such modifications as it deems fit, or refuse to

grant such a permit. The aforesaid provision contained in Section 74(1)

is subject to the provisions of sub section (3) which states that the

Statement Government shall, if so directed by the Central Government,

having regard to the number of vehicles, road conditions and other

relevant matters, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct a State

Transport Authority and a Regional Transport Authority to limit the

number of contract carriages generally or of any specified type, as

may be fixed and specified in the notification, operating on city routes

in towns with a population of not less than 5 lacs.

15. In the present case the admitted position is that the number of

contract carriage permits/licenses, which the respondent authorities

decided to issue under Section 74 in respect of maxi cabs was limited

to 100. It is also the admitted position that when the scheme was

initially floated for grant of maxi cabs permits in the year 1993, the

respondent authorities invited applications by issuing a public

advertisement/notice. If the submission of Mr. Waziri, that there was

no obligation in law to issue an advertisement and to invite

applications for issuance of permits under Section 74 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, were to be accepted, there was no need to issue any such

advertisement/public notice even in the year 1993. But the

respondent authorities did so. The reason for such procedure being

adopted is not difficult to fathom.

16. Section 74 merely states that on application being made, the

Regional Transport Authority may grant or refuse to grant a contract

carriage permit. It does not state whether, or not, the application

would be made after public notice, or by invitation.

17. The grant of permits by the State entails distribution of largesse,

when the total number of contract carriage permits, in respect of maxi

cabs, has been capped to only 100. It is only by obtaining such permit

that its holder gets a right to run the contract carriage of maxi cabs.

The permit, when issued, gives an advantage and a financial benefit to

the permit holder. Consequently, its distribution and allotment,

necessarily, has to be made in a transparent manner, so that all

members of public may have an equal and fair opportunity to seek the

grant of the said permits. In Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress

vs. State of Madhya Pradesh And Others (2011) 5 Supreme

Court SCC 29, the Supreme Court inter alia held as follows:-

" What needs to be emphasised is that the State and /or its agencies/instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any person according to the sweet will and whim of the political entities and/or officers of the State. Every action/decision of the State and/or its

agencies/instrumentalities to give largesse or confer benefit must be founded on a sound, transparent, discernible and well-defined policy, which shall be made known to the public by publication in the Official Gazette and other recognized modes of publicity and such policy must be implemented/executed by adopting a non- discriminatory and non-arbitrary method irrespective of the class of category of persons proposed to be benefited by the policy. The distribution of largesse like allotment of land, grant of quota, permit licence, etc. by the State and its agencies/instrumentalities should always be done in a fair and equitable manner and the element of favouitism or nepotism shall not influence the exercise of discretion, if any, conferred upon the particular functionary or officer of the State."

18. The manner in which the allotment of permits to respondent

nos.3 to 7 has taken place in the present case, leaves much to be

desired and raises serious doubts about the bona fides of the action of

the respondent authorities. How is it that suddenly, after 8 years, the

respondent authorities decided to entertain applications for grant of

the maxi cabs contract carriage permits? How is it that respondent

nos. 3 to 7 learnt of the decision of the respondent authorities to

entertain such applications, when no prior information in this regard

was publicized? These questions have not been answered by the

respondent authorities in their counter affidavit. They have only taken

the shelter of the language used in Section 74(1) of the Motors

Vehicles Act, which is neither here nor there.

19. As notice above, even respondent nos. 3 to 7 state that the

respondent authorities were not entertaining the applications for grant

of maxi cabs contract permits over the years. Their case appears to be

that they had repeatedly applied for these permits, inter alia, in July,

2010 and September, 2010 and it was only when they repeatedly

approached the Transport Authorities, an order was passed on

12.10.2010 granting 4 permits to each of respondents. 3 to 7.

20. When the said maxi cabs contract carriage permits were in such

short supply, it cannot be appreciated how the respondent authorities

could have quietly, and without any prior general public notice, allotted

said permits to a handful of persons by allotting 4 permits to each of

them. Clearly there appears to be more to it, than meets the eye. The

action of the respondent authorities in allotting the permits in question

to respondent nos.3 to 7 is discriminatory, arbitrary and offends the

petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14 of the

Constitution of India.

21. For the aforesaid reasons, I allow this writ petition and quash the

allotment of the maxi cabs contract carriage permits granted to

respondent nos. 3 to 7 by the respondent authorities. I further direct

that respondent authorities shall make allotment of the 21 maxi cabs

contract carriage permits, or such other permits as it decides to grant,

only through the process of inviting applications from the general

public by giving sufficient and adequate advance public notice to all

concerned.

22. The petitioners are entitled to costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- to

be paid by respondents 1 and 2 within four weeks.

VIPIN SANGHI, J APRIL 24, 2012 as/hk