Orissa High Court
Harakrushna Samanta vs State Transport Authority on 11 April, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 33342 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Harakrushna Samanta .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State Transport Authority, Odisha, .... Opposite Party (s)
Cuttack & Ors.
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Goutam Mishra, Sr. Adv.
Along with
Mr. J.R. Deo, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Subir Palit,
Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Pravakar Behera,
Standing Counsel for
Transport Department
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-07.03.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-11.04.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, challenges the decision of
the State Transport Authority, Odisha, Cuttack, in rejecting his
application for grant of a Permanent Permit on the route from
Mundibeda to Jeypore, on the ground that the vehicle was not
registered at the time of submission of the application.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
2. The petitioner further assails the said decision as illegal and arbitrary,
contending that the grant of the permanent permit in favour of Opposite
Party No. 4 is unjustified and without due consideration of relevant
facts.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The route from Mundibeda to Jeypore and back was advertised on the
official website of the Odisha Motor Vehicle Department, as well as in
the Odia daily 'The Samaj' dated 09.10.2024 and the English daily 'The
Times of India'dated 22.10.2024, inviting applications from intending
operators for the grant of Permanent Stage Carriage Permits on various
routes. The last date for receipt of applications was fixed as 25.10.2024.
(ii) Upon coming across the advertisement dated 22.10.2024, the petitioner,
with an intent to operate passenger transport services on the said route,
purchased a brand-new vehicle on 25.10.2024 and reserved registration
number OD-15AB-4545 by paying the requisite fee of ₹10,000/-.
(iii) The petitioner deposited the Motor Vehicle Tax through the dealer and
obtained both the Fitness Certificate and Insurance Certificate in respect
of the said vehicle. However, the registration process could not be
completed on the same day due to some technical issues in the Vahan-
IV portal maintained by the Government of India.
(iv) Despite the above, the petitioner submitted an application for grant of
Permanent Permit in respect of the said vehicle which intended to be
registered as OD-15AB-4545.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(v) On 29.10.2024, Opposite Party No. 2 issued a notice informing all
applicants and objectors that the applications would be placed before
the State Transport Authority for hearing on 05.11.2024. All the
concerned parties were accordingly invited to attend the virtual
hearing.
(vi) During the hearing held on 05.11.2024, the applications of both the
petitioner and Opposite Party No. 4 were taken up for consideration.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle proposed by the
petitioner was of a more recent manufacturing than that of Opposite
Party No. 4 and, therefore, the petitioner had a superior claim on merits.
(vii) However, the State Transport Authority proceeded to reject the
petitioner's application on the ground that the vehicle had not been
registered at the time of submission of the application. This decision
was recorded under Item No.33 of the meeting held on 05.11.2024, the
proceedings of which were published on the State Transport
Authority's official website on 27.12.2024.
(viii) Following the rejection, the petitioner submitted a detailed
representation to Opposite Party No. 3, requesting reconsideration of
his application on its merits. It was clarified that the vehicle was duly
registered on 30.10.2024, just five days after the application was
submitted. The delay in registration occurred solely due to the technical
issues with the Vahan portal. Notably, the vehicle had already been
insured and the Motor Vehicle Tax was deposited on the date of
purchase itself.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(ix) Aggrieved by the arbitrary and unjust decision of the State Transport
Authority, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the
present Writ Petition.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The petitioner submits that the impugned decision of the State
Transport Authority, in rejecting his application, is contrary to the
legislative intent underlying the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules
framed thereunder namely, Odisha Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993. The
Opposite Party No. 1, being a statutory authority discharging quasi-
judicial functions, was under an obligation to act fairly, reasonably, and
in accordance with law. The rejection of the petitioner's application
solely on the ground that the vehicle was not registered at the time of
submission reflects gross non-application of mind which is arbitrary,
and is wholly unsustainable in law.
(ii) The petitioner further submitted that Section 70 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 governs the procedure for making an application for the grant
of a Stage Carriage Permit. The said provision stipulates that an
application shall, as far as may be, contain the particulars mentioned
under clauses (a) to (f). However, it is submitted that there is no
requirement under this provision mandating the production of a
Registration Certificate at the time of filing the application. Therefore,
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
the rejection of the petitioner's application on such a flimsy ground is
dehors the statutory framework and is legally untenable.
(iii) The petitioner further relied on Rule 45 of the Odisha Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1993, which prescribes the forms in which applications for
permits are to be made. According to the said Rule, an application for a
Stage Carriage Permit is to be submitted in Form XV. A bare perusal of
Form XV makes it evident that submission of motor vehicle documents,
including the Registration Certificate, is not mandated at the time of
making the application. Clause 14 of the said Form merely requires a
declaration by the applicant regarding the possession of the vehicle, and
stipulates that if the vehicle is already owned, the Registration
Certificate may be furnished. It further provides that in cases where the
applicant has not yet taken possession of the vehicle, the Registration
Certificate may be submitted at the time of issuance of the permit.
Hence, rejection of the petitioner's application on the ground of non-
registration at the time of application is not in consonance with the
statutory scheme.
(iv) The petitioner also placed reliance on Rule 87 of the Central Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989, which expressly provides that where the applicant
does not possess the registration mark of the vehicle at the time of
making the application, he shall produce the Registration Certificate
within one month from the date of sanction of the application. This
provision, by necessary implication, contemplates a situation where an
applicant may apply for a permit even before the registration of the
vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner submitted that rejection of his
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
application solely on the ground that the vehicle was not registered at
the time of application is legally unsustainable and contrary to the
statutory scheme.
(v) From a conjoint reading of the aforementioned provisions, it is evident
that there exists no mandatory requirement for the applicant to furnish
the particulars of the vehicle, including the Registration Certificate, at
the stage of applying for a Stage Carriage Permit. Accordingly, it is
submitted that an application cannot be treated as invalid merely on
account of non-submission of such particulars. Similarly, disqualifying
or superseding an applicant on such basis, when neither the statute nor
do the rules prescribe it as mandatory, is wholly arbitrary and without
jurisdiction.
(vi) The petitioner submitted that he had complied with all requisite
formalities under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Odisha Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1993. Although the Registration Certificate could not be
submitted at the time of application due to technical issues with the
Vahan portal, the same was obtained well in advance of the date of
consideration and made available thereafter. In view of such
substantive compliance, rejection of the petitioner's application on a
mere technical ground is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the
object and spirit of the law.
(vii) The petitioner submitted that neither the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 nor
does the Odisha Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993 prescribe that an
application for grant of a Permanent Permit must necessarily pertain to
a vehicle that is already registered. In this context, reference was made
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
to Rule 84 of the Odisha Motor Vehicles Rules, which prescribes that an
application for permit shall be accompanied by documents such as the
Registration Certificate, Fitness Certificate, and Insurance Certificate,
where applicable. However, it is submitted that the impugned
advertisement did not mandate submission of these documents at the
stage of application. The petitioner's application had been duly
accepted and placed before the State Transport Authority in its meeting
held on 5 November 2024. Thus, rejection of the application on this
technical ground is devoid of legal basis.
(viii) Further, the petitioner submitted that the vehicle in question was duly
registered by the Registering Authority, Sambalpur on 30 October 2024.
It is pertinent to note that on the date of consideration of the application,
namely, 5 November 2024, the vehicle stood registered in accordance
with law. Therefore, rejection of the petitioner's application solely on
the ground that the vehicle was not registered at the time of submission
is erroneous, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled legal position. The
petitioner submitted that once the vehicle had been registered prior to
the date of consideration, rejection of the application on such a hyper-
technical ground is wholly unjustified.
(ix) The petitioner further contended that the Supreme Court of India as
well as this Court have consistently held that the relevant date for
assessing possession of the requisite documents, such as the
Registration Certificate, is the date of consideration of the application
and not the date of submission. In the present case, it is an admitted
position that the petitioner's vehicle was duly registered on 30 October
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
2024, prior to the date of consideration, i.e., 5 November 2024.
Therefore, the petitioner ought not to have been disqualified from
consideration for the grant of Permanent Permit merely on the ground
that the registration was pending at the time of submission.
(x) The petitioner further submitted that the Opposite Party Authority
failed to consider the petitioner's application on its merits, and instead
proceeded to grant the Permanent Permit in favor of Opposite Party No.
4, in clear contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 and the Odisha Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993. The said action is
arbitrary, unjust, and violative of the settled principles of law governing
the grant of stage carriage permits.
(xi) The petitioner also submitted that during the 303rd meeting of the State
Transport Authority held on 5 November 2024, it was specifically
resolved that in the event of a tie between applicants, preference shall
be given to the vehicle having a later date of registration. In light of this
decision, the petitioner's application ought to have been considered
favourably, since the vehicle proposed by the petitioner bore a later date
of registration. The decision taken in the petitioner's case is therefore
arbitrary and in violation of the principle expressly adopted by the
Authority. The petitioner further reiterated that the resolution adopted
in the 295th meeting of the State Transport Authority also supports this
view and is applicable in the present context. The principle that was
applied in respect of item number 29 in the meeting dated 5 November
2024 ought to have been applied equally to item number 33. The
petitioner submitted that his vehicle had been duly evaluated, marks
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
was awarded, and resulted in a tie. Therefore, his application ought not
to have been summarily rejected. On the date of consideration, the
petitioner possessed all valid and requisite documents and was
therefore entitled to equal and fair treatment under law.
(xii) In light of the foregoing submissions, the petitioner prayed that this
Court may be pleased to quash the decision dated 5 November 2024,
insofar as it relates to the grant of the Permanent Permit on the route
Mundibeda to Jeypore and back under item number 33. The petitioner
further prayed for a direction to the Opposite Party No. 1 to consider
his application afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3
earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) An advertisement dated 17.10.2024 clearly required submission of the
prescribed application form by the registered owner, along with the
application fee receipt, self-attested copies of the Registration
Certificate, valid Fitness and Insurance Certificates, tax details, a
solvency certificate or bank guarantee of ₹99,000/- valid for one year,
and self-declarations. It was also clearly stated that incomplete
applications, delayed submissions, or those containing false or
suppressed information would be summarily rejected.
(ii) Section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 outlines the requirements for
an application for a stage carriage permit. It mandates that the
application must specify the route, type and seating capacity of the
vehicle, proposed number of trips along with a timetable, reserve
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
vehicles, maintenance arrangements, and other prescribed particulars.
Sub-section (2) further provides that such applications must be
accompanied by documents as may be prescribed under the Rules. Sub-
section (32) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines the term
"prescribed" to mean prescribed by the Rules made under the Act.
(iii) Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the State
Government to frame rules for carrying out the provisions of Chapter
V, which pertains to the control of transport vehicles. In exercise of this
power, the State of Odisha has enacted the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules,
1993. Rule 45 of the said Rules prescribes the form of application for
permits, while Rule 84 governs the manner of making such applications
and the receipt thereof. Sub-Rules (2) and (3) of Rule 84 of the Orissa
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993 mandate that every application, subject to
Rule 87, must include all required particulars, including the correct
permanent address of the applicant, and must be accompanied by
necessary motor vehicle documents such as the Registration Certificate,
Fitness Certificate, Insurance Certificate (where applicable), and a tax
clearance certificate. Additionally, incomplete applications may not be
taken up for consideration.
(iv) In view of the aforesaid statutory provisions, it is a mandatory
requirement that an application for a stage carriage permit must be
submitted in the prescribed form along with the requisite documents as
stipulated under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 84 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1993. Pursuant to these provisions, the advertisement dated
21.10.2024 set the final date for submission of applications as 25.10.2024.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
The petitioner, however, submitted an application quoting a vehicle
registration number--OD-15AB-4545--even though the said vehicle
had not been registered as on the date of application. It is pertinent to
note that the number was merely reserved for future allotment at the
time of registration, and therefore, the petitioner failed to furnish a valid
Registration Certificate as mandated under Section 70 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 84(2) of the Orissa Motor Vehicles
Rules. In such circumstances, the State Transport Authority, Odisha
rightly declined to consider the petitioner's application during the
evaluation process for grant of the Permanent Permit on the
Mundibeda-Jeypore route.
(v) While submitting the application for grant of permanent stage carriage
permit in Form-XV, as prescribed under Rule 45(1) of the Orissa Motor
Vehicles Rules, the petitioner, in Sl. No. 14, specifically declared that he
was in possession of the vehicle and that the Certificate of Registration
was enclosed. However, the factual position reveals that as on
25.10.2024, the last date for submission, the petitioner's vehicle was not
registered, and no Certificate of Registration had been issued in his
favour. The declaration made in Clause 14 of the application form was
thus incorrect and misleading. Accordingly, the State Transport
Authority, Odisha, while assessing the comparative merits of the
petitioner and Opposite Party No.4, rightfully declined to consider the
petitioner's application, as it failed to meet the essential requirement of
vehicle registration as on the date of application.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(vi) The rule of preference lies within the discretionary domain of the State
Transport Authority, Odisha. Where all other factors remain equal, the
Authority is well within its rights to prefer an applicant who has
submitted a complete application in compliance with all mandatory
legal requirements over one who has failed to do so. In the present case,
the State Transport Authority, Odisha has acted justifiably and in
accordance with law in granting the permit in favour of Opposite Party
No.4, keeping in view the interest of the travelling public. In the present
case, the State Transport Authority, Odisha has taken a conscious and
well-reasoned decision strictly in accordance with law and within the
bounds of its jurisdiction. It cannot be said that the Authority has
exceeded its legal limits in preferring Opposite Party No.4, who has
kept his vehicle idle since April 2024 specifically for the purpose of
operating on the said route.
(vii) The scope of writ jurisdiction in interfering with the decision of a quasi-
judicial authority is narrow and limited. Unless there is a manifest error
of law or the authority has acted beyond its jurisdiction, the Writ Court
cannot invoke its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to interfere with this kind of matter.
(viii) The petitioner's reliance on a prior instance is misconceived. In that
case, both applicants had duly registered their vehicles before the cutoff
date, and permits were granted based on comparative dates of
registration. In contrast, the petitioner's vehicle was unregistered at the
time of application, and no Registration Certificate was submitted.
Hence, no parity arises. The decision to grant the permit to Opposite
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Party No. 4, who had kept his vehicle idle since April 2024 and was
earlier denied a temporary permit, is lawful, reasoned, and in public
interest.
6. The learned counsel for the Opposite Parties No. 4 earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) Opposite Party No.3, vide Notification dated 17.10.2024, invited
applications for permanent permits on the Mundibeda-Jeypore route,
with the last date initially fixed as 21.10.2024. Pursuant thereto,
Opposite Party No.4 submitted his application on 21.10.2024 for his
vehicle bearing registration number OD-10Z-2205. Subsequently, by
Notification dated 21.10.2024, the last date was extended to 25.10.2024.
Taking advantage of the extension, the petitioner purchased a new
vehicle on 25.10.2024 and submitted an application quoting the reserved
registration number OD-15AB-4545.
(ii) The petitioner submitted his application on 25.10.2024 pursuant to the
advertisement dated 21.10.2024, citing a newly purchased vehicle
which, at the time, was neither registered nor supported by a valid
Registration Certificate.
(iii) In the meeting held on 05.11.2024, applications of both the petitioner
and Opposite Party No.4 were considered after affording due
opportunity of hearing. Despite both candidates having secured equal
marks, the State Transport Authority, Odisha, rejected the petitioner's
application on merits.
(iv) Both the petitioner and Opposite Party No.4 possess vehicles of the
same model, equally capable of providing comparable comfort and
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
service to the travelling public, thereby securing 65 marks each in the
evaluation process. Hence, both stood on an equal footing. However,
the competent authority rightly exercised its discretion in preferring
Opposite Party No.4, taking into account the fact that his vehicle had
remained idle since April 2024 in anticipation of the route being
advertised, and that his earlier application for a temporary permit was
not entertained due to the route being reserved for permanent permit
notification.
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
7. Heard Learned Counsels for the parties and perused the documents
placed before this Court.
8. The present writ petition pertains to a dispute regarding the grant of a
permanent stage carriage permit on the route from Mundibeda to
Jeypore and back, pursuant to notifications issued by Opposite Party
No.3. The petitioner challenges the order dated 05.11.2024 passed by the
State Transport Authority, Odisha, whereby the application of Opposite
Party No.4 was preferred over that of the petitioner.
9. It is a well-settled principle of law that no individual holds a vested
right to the grant of a stage carriage permit merely by satisfying the
statutory requirements. The grant of such a permit is not a matter of
entitlement but lies within the discretionary domain of the competent
transport authority, which must assess and balance various relevant
considerations in accordance with law while exercising such discretion.
10. The Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority,
while exercising powers under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, function
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
as administrative bodies discharging quasi-judicial duties in matters
concerning the grant of permits.
11. The Supreme Court in G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd.1
has observed the following in this regard:
"The Motor Vehicles Act is a statute which creates new
rights and liabilities and prescribes an elaborate procedure
for their regulation. No one is entitled to a permit as of
right even if he satisfies all the prescribed conditions. The
grant of a permit is entirely within the discretion of the
transport authorities and naturally depends on several
circumstances which have to be taken into account. The
Regional Transport Authority and the Provincial
Transport Authority are entrusted under Section 42 with
this power. They may be described as administrative bodies
exercising quasi-judicial functions in the matter of the
grant of permits."
12. While such discretion vests with the transport authorities, it is equally
well-settled that a denial of permit must be based on cogent, justifiable,
and reasonable grounds. Any decision tainted by arbitrariness or
illegality is subject to judicial scrutiny.
13. The scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules framed
thereunder reveals that the legislation is a self-contained code. Disputes
arising within its ambit are to be resolved through the statutory
mechanisms prescribed therein. Even where a decision appears
erroneous on merits, this Court cannot substitute its own discretion for
that of the competent authority, unless the impugned decision is
(1952) 1 SCC 334
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
demonstrably arbitrary, without jurisdiction, or in violation of the
principles of natural justice.
14. Moreover, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution, though wide, is supervisory and not appellate. This Court
cannot reappreciate the merits of a decision taken by a statutory
authority acting within its jurisdiction, unless such decision is vitiated
by gross irregularity, perversity, or manifest illegality.
15. Therefore, the limited question that arises for consideration is whether
the decision of the State Transport Authority, Odisha, in preferring the
application of Opposite Party No.4 over that of the petitioner suffers
from any manifest arbitrariness, illegality, or jurisdictional error
warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution
16. In the present case, the material facts are not in dispute. Opposite Party
No.3 issued a notification dated 17.10.2024 inviting applications for the
grant of permanent stage carriage permits. The last date for submission
of applications was initially fixed as 21.10.2024. Opposite Party No.4
submitted his application on the said date along with all requisite
documents, including the Registration Certificate of his vehicle.
Subsequently, by notification dated 21.10.2024, the deadline was
extended to 25.10.2024.
17. The petitioner, having purchased the vehicle on the extended last date
of 25.10.2024, submitted his application with only a reserved
registration number. Crucially, as on that date, the vehicle was not
registered, nor were essential documents like the Registration
Certificate and Fitness Certificate furnished. The petitioner attributes
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
this to technical issues on the Vahan-IV portal. However, this
explanation does not address the legal requirement of possessing a
valid Registration Certificate at the time of application. The absence of
such a certificate renders the application incomplete and non-compliant
with the mandatory statutory conditions for consideration.
18. Moreover, a perusal of the records indicates that in the meeting of the
State Transport Authority on 05.11.2024, both the petitioner's and
Opposite Party No.4's applications were considered and awarded equal
marks. However, the Authority, in the exercise of its discretion,
preferred Opposite Party No.4, whose application met all statutory and
procedural requirements. Notably, Opposite Party No.4 had kept his
vehicle idle since April 2024 in anticipation of obtaining a permit,
demonstrating preparedness and bona fides. On the other hand, the
petitioner's application was deficient, lacking mandatory documents
such as the Registration Certificate, thereby rendering it ineligible
under the applicable legal framework.
19. On a careful examination of the record, this Court finds no trace of
arbitrariness, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
The authority has applied its mind and recorded cogent reasons for
preferring Opposite Party No.4 over the petitioner.
V. CONCLUSION:
20. In light of the above findings, this Court is of the opinion that the
present writ petition is devoid of merit.
21. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
impugned decision of the State Transport Authority, Odisha, Cuttack
having been taken in accordance with law and upon due adherence to
the principles of natural justice, warrants no interference.
22. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
23. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 11th April, 2025/
