Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 24.10.2024 vs State Of Hp & Ors on 24 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:10892
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.11900 of 2024
Date of Decision: 24.10.2024
_____________________________________________________________________
Yoginder Kumar Sharma & Anr.
......Petitioners
Versus
State of HP & Ors.
.......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioners: Ms. Aruna Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr.
B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals,
with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondents No. 1 & 2-State.
Mr. Dheeraj K.Vashisht, Advocate, for
respondents No. 3 & 4.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for the following main
reliefs:
"(i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly
be issued directing to the respondents No. 1 and 2 to
cancel the temporary route permit (Annexure P-4) of
respondents No. 3 and 4 from Solan to IGMC, Shimla being
ultra-virus and respondents No. 3 & 4 may kindly be
directed to stop plying their bus over the said route permit
in the interest of justice.
2024:HHC:10892
(ii) That the respondents No. 1 and 2 may kindly be
restrained from issuing Temporary Route Permit & Stage
Carriage Permit in future in violation of The Motor Vehicle
Act, 1986 & Rules framed thereunder without the decision
of the Regional Transport Authority by issuing a writ of
mandamus.
(iii) That the entire record pertaining to the case of the
petitioners may kindly be summoned for the kind perusal
of this Hon'ble Court.
2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, who are private
transporters, as has been highlighted in the petition and further
canvassed by Ms. Aruna Chauhan, learned counsel representing the
petitioners, is that though prayer made on behalf of respondent-HRTC
to grant it permit for route i.e. Solan to IGMC, Shimla was rejected by
the Regional Transport Authority on 13.09.2023 on the ground that
"there is very less frequencies of timings on the route and it will cause
unhealthy competition on the segment", but yet to defeat the aforesaid
order passed by Regional Transport Authority, Secretary, Regional
Transport Authority, Solan issued temporary route permit to the
respondent-HRTC to ply the bus on the aforesaid route for a period of
four months. Ms. Aruna Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners,
further stated that petitioners, herein being private transporters
are/were also eligible to be considered for grant of permit of the route
in question, but respondents-State with a view to give undue benefit to
2024:HHC:10892
the respondents-HRTC passed order under Section 87 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, which otherwise could not have been invoked in
the given facts and circumstances of the case.
3. While making this Court peruse, Section 87 of Motor
Vehicles Act, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that
though in terms of aforesaid provision of law, Regional Transport
Authority and the State Transport Authority without following
procedure laid down under Section 80 of Motor Vehicles Act can grant
permit for a limited period, but in few contingencies. She submitted
that vehicles of HRTC, permitted to be plied vide impugned order from
Solan to IGMC, Shimla, are neither for the conveyance of passengers
on special occasions, such as fairs and religious gatherings or for the
purposes of a seasonal business, nor any prayer was made on behalf
of respondents-HRTC for renewal of route permit issued in past qua
route in question was pending before authority concerned responsible
for granting route permit. She further submitted that on one hand
Regional Transport Authority, which comprises of Chairman and
Secretary, rejected the prayer made by respondents-HRTC for grant of
route permit qua the route in question, but on the other hand
Secretary usurping the powers of Regional Transport Authority
proceeded to issue temporary permit without there being any lawful
authority.
2024:HHC:10892
4. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional
Advocate General, representing the respondents-State and Mr. Dheeraj
K.Vashisht, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4, while
supporting the impugned order, vehemently argued that Section 87 of
Motor Vehicles Act empowers Regional Transport Authority and State
Transport Authority to issue route permit for a limited period to meet a
particular temporary need without following procedure as provided
under Section 80 of Motor Vehicle Act. They state that true it is that in
past prayer made on behalf of HRTC for grant of route permit qua the
route in question was rejected by Regional Transport Authority, but
such fact would not debar Regional Transport Authority or State
Transport Authority to pass order, if required under Section 87 of the
Motor Vehicles Act. While refuting the contention of learned counsel
for the petitioners that there was no occasion for the Secretary,
Regional Transport Authority to pass impugned order under Section
87 of Motor Vehicles Act, above named counsel representing the
respondents specifically invited attention of this Court to Section 87
(c), perusal whereof reveals that temporary permit can be issued with
a view to meet a temporary particular need. Learned counsel
representing the respondents further submitted that since there was a
persistent demand on behalf of residents of Solan to provide direct
conveyance from Solan to IGMC, Shimla, impugned order rightly came
2024:HHC:10892
to be passed by the competent authority, while exercising power under
Section 87 of Motor Vehicles Act for a limited period in the interest of
the public at large.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
material available on record, this Court finds that before applying for
temporary permit the respondent-HRTC, had applied for route permit
qua the route in question i.e. Solan to IGMC, Shimla, but such prayer
of it was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting
held on 13.09.2023 (Annexure P-3).
7. Perusal of aforesaid annexure clearly reveals that earlier
prayer made on behalf of respondents-HRTC was rejected on the
ground that there is very less frequencies of timings on the route and
it will cause unhealthy competition on the segment". Probably at that
relevant time proposal to ply bus from Solan to IGMC, Shimla was
mooted by HRTC in the larger public interest, however, Regional
Transport Authority, while considering such prayer arrived at a
conclusion that in case, route permit is granted qua the route in
question, it would unnecessarily create unhealthy competition, as a
result thereof, very purpose of providing immediate succor to public at
large would be defeated. It also not in dispute that order impugned in
the instant proceedings ultimately came to be passed under Section
87 of Motor Vehicles Act, which certainly empowers Regional
Transport Authority and State Transport Authority to grant route
2024:HHC:10892
permit for a limited period without following procedure laid down
under Section 80 of Motor Vehicles Act. Section 80 of Motor Vehicles
Act lays down procedure to be followed for granting route permit and
such power is to be exercised by the Regional Transport Authority.
Moot question which needs to be decided in the instant proceedings is,
"whether under Section 87 of Motor Vehicles Act Regional Transport
Authority or State Transport Authority could have issued temporary
permit in favour of the respondents-HRTC qua the route in question
i.e. Solan to IGMC, Shimla, especially when, such prayer made on
behalf of respondents-HRTC stood rejected pursuant to order dated
13.09.2023 passed by the Regional Transport Authority?"
8. To explore the answer to aforesaid question, it would be
apt to take note of the Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which
reads as under:
"87. Temporary permits. -
(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
(a) for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions
such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings, or
(b) for the purposes of a seasonal business, or
(c) to meet a particular temporary need, or
2024:HHC:10892
(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:
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.
(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a temporary
permit may be granted thereunder in respect of any route or area where
(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
(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:
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.
9. Careful perusal of aforesaid provision of law clearly reveals
that Regional Transport Authority or State Transport Authority may
proceed to grant route permit for a limited period without following
due procedure as laid down under Section 80 in certain contingencies:
2024:HHC:10892
(i) for the conveyance of passengers on special
occasions such as to and from fairs and religious
gatherings, or
(ii) for the purposes of a seasonal business, or
(iii) to meet a particular temporary need, or
(iv) pending decision on an application for the renewal
of a permit.
10. No doubt, in the case at hand, permission under Section
87 of Motor Vehicles Act never came to be accorded in favor of the
respondent-HRTC for conveyance of passengers on special occasions
such as fairs and religious gatherings as well as for the purpose of a
seasonal business. Similarly, no prayer, if any, made by the
respondent-HRTC for renewal of permit was pending at the time of
passing of order under Section 87 of Motor Vehicles Act. However,
there appears to be merit in the contention of learned counsel for the
respondents that Section 87 (c) of Motor Vehicles Act empowers
authorities provided under aforesaid act to grant permit to meet a
temporary particular need. Since very purpose and object of starting
route from Solan to IGMC, Shimla is/was to provide relief to public at
large, order dated 13.09.2023 can be said to have been passed by the
authority concerned under Section 87 (c) of Motor Vehicles Act with a
view to meet a particular temporary need. Moreover, careful perusal of
minutes of meeting of Regional Transport Authority held on
2024:HHC:10892
13.09.2023 (Annexure P-3) clearly reveals that earlier prayer made on
behalf of respondent-HRTC qua the route in question was not rejected
for all times to come, rather direction was issued to the Secretary,
Regional Transport Authority to seek afresh application under Section
87 of Motor Vehicles Act with the justification of proposed routes in
detail and forward the case to the Chairman, Regional Transport
Authority through single file, meaning thereby, even at the time of
passing of order dated 13.09.2023 Regional Transport Authority was
fully aware of requirement of granting route permit qua the route in
question, but as has been observed hereinabove at that particular time
decision not taken to avoid unhealthy competition, which would have
otherwise not helped public at large. Pursuant to aforesaid order,
respondent-HRTC applied for temporary permit under Section 87 of
Motor Vehicles Act, citing therein reason that vehicle on the route in
question is required to be plied temporarily to provide circuit to the
public at large. Regional Transport Authority, while exercising power
under Section 87 of Motor Vehicles Act issued permit for a period of
four months w.e.f 12.07.2024 to 11.11.2024 only, meaning thereby,
that in any eventuality order laid challenge in the instant proceedings
shall came to an end on 11.11.2024.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners though invited
attention of this Court to judgment dated 20.11.2023 passed by
2024:HHC:10892
Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 9623 of 2013 titled Mehta
Raghuvindra Singh & Anr. Vs. The Regional Transport Office,
Sabzi Mandi Solan & Ors, wherein temporary route permit granted by
Regional Transport Authority under Section 87 of Motor Vehicles Act
was laid challenge and Court having taken note of statement made by
learned Advocate General that temporary permit appears to have been
issued in violation of statutory provision directed authority concerned
to withdraw the temporary permit issued under Section 87 of Motor
Vehicles Act within a period of 48 hours and reserved liberty to the
petitioner to have recourse against the respondents in accordance with
law for the purpose of claiming damages. However, having perused
aforesaid judgment in its entirety, this Court finds no application of
the same in the instant case. In the case before Coordinate Bench,
learned Advocate General, himself stated that permit granted under
Section 87 of Motor Vehicles Act appears to have been passed in
violation of statutory provisions contained under Section 87 of Motor
Vehicles Act, however, in the instant case, as has been discussed in
detail liberty was reserved to the respondent-HRTC to apply for
temporary route permit under Section 87 of Regional Transport
Authority and ultimately such route permit was granted under Section
87 of Motor Vehicles Act for a period of four months, enabling it to
meet a particular temporary need.
2024:HHC:10892
11. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made
hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
order, which appears to have been passed strictly in terms of provision
contained under Section 87 of Motor Vehicles Act and as such, no
interference is called for. Present petition fails and dismissed
accordingly alongwith pending applications, if any.
October 24, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma),
(Sunil) Judge
