Beer Singh Thakur And Others ... vs Vijay Vardhan And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2523 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

             THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
                             AND
            JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE

                  Special Appeal No.322 OF 2018

                             17TH August, 2022

Beer Singh Thakur and Others                                ......Appellants

                                       Vs.

Vijay Vardhan and others                                 ......Respondents

Counsel for the appellants : Shri B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Shri S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief Holder.

Counsel for respondent no.2.       :     Shri Jitednra Chaudhary, learned
counsel                                  counsel.


JUDGMENT: (Per Shri R.C. Khulbe, J.)

The present special appeal is directed against the order dated 26.04.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1224 of 2015. The impugned order is short and is reproduced hereunder:-

"Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.P.S. Mer, S.C. for the State.

Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate, for the intervener. Strictly in view of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the route Premnagar-Raipur in District Dehradun was notified on 13.1.2009. The bus operators are required to operate the buses as per notification dated 13.1.2009.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private operator/intervener submits that by way of a local arrangement the notification was issued on 27.12.2008, regulating the local traffic.

However, the order dated 27.12.2008 has lost its efficacy in view of Notification dated 13.1.2009.

It is, accordingly, clarified that now, as per law, the Notification dated 13.1.2009 would be enforceable and not the order dated 27.12.2008. It is further clarified that by making the local arrangement, the length of route can neither be increased nor decreased.

Ordered accordingly.

The writ petition is allowed accordingly by quashing the order under challenge.

All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly."

2. The respondent-writ petitioner had earlier preferred the Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2594 of 2011. That petition had been preferred to challenge the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority, on an Agenda Item No. 14 (3) whereby he formulated a new transportation route i.e., Prem Nagar-Raipur, City Bus Road Route situated in Dehradun city. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.01.2015 with liberty to file a fresh writ petition. In consequence of the said liberty the respondent-writ petitioner preferred Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1224 of 2015, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order. The issue raised by the respondent-writ petitioner in the writ petition was with regard to the authority and competence of the Regional Transport Authority to formulate a new route. The case of the writ-petitioner was that the power to formulate a new route vests only in the State Government by virtue of Section 68 (3) (ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and by resort to Section 72 (2) (XXII), the Regional Transport Authority could not have formulated a new route as the said powers is only to vary the conditions of the permit or to attach to permit further conditions. The case of the writ- petitioner was that the question of variation of conditions of permit, or attachment of further conditions of a permit could arise only in respect of a permit validly issued in respect of a duly notified route by the State Government under Section 68 (3) (ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned Single Judge has found merit in the said submission of the writ-petitioner while allowing the writ petition. We may at the same time observe that the impugned judgment is not elaborate and does not clearly bring out the aforesaid submission of the writ-petitioner as

well as the acceptance of the said submission by the learned Single Judge.

3. The appellants before us have preferred this special appeal after obtaining leave. The appellants, who are 25 in number are aggrieved by the impugned judgment on the ground that they are the existing permit holders in respect of the route formulated by the Regional Transport Authority, on 27.12.2008 vide Agenda Item No.14 (3).

4. Before we proceed further, we may set-out the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority, on 27.12.2008 on Agenda Item No.14 (3), which reads as follows:-

" (3) प्रेमनगर - रायपुर वाया ब�ूपुर चौक-ब�ीवाला चौक-जी०एम०एस० रोड-िटपटॉप वैिडं ग �ाईट-िशमला बाईपास-आई०एस०बी०टी० - �र�ना पुल - जोगीवाला - नेह�ग्राम-रायपुर वाया

ब�ूपुर चौक- िकशननगर- घ�ाघर -Dokिलटी चौक- सव�चौक-रायपुर:-

यह माग� संभागीय प�रवहन प्रािधकरण, दे हरादू न की बैठक िदनांक 15-05-2006 म�

नगर बस सेवा हे तु वग�कृत िकया गया है । माग� की ल�ाई 24 िक०मी० है । इस माग� पर �ेत्रीय

जनता �ारा बार-बार नगर बस सेवा संचािलत िकये जाने की मांग की जा रही है । प्रािधकरण �ारा

मामले पर िवचार िकया गया। दे हरादू न रा� की अस्थाई राजधानी होने तथा शहर की आबादी म�

अ�िधक वृ�� हो जाने एवं जनता को ��रत, आरामदे ह, प्रदू षण मु� एवं बेरोजगारी को �ि�गत

रखते �ए स�ी बस सेवा उपल� कराने के उ�े � से एवं रायपुर म� भारत सरकार के प्रितस्थानों

म� शहर के िविभ� स्थानों के अ�िधक सं�ा म� कम�चारी काय�रत होने के कारण जनसुिवधाथ� एवं

कालाबाजारी पर अंकुश लगाने के उ�े � से िनण�य िलया गया िक मद सं�ा-14 (3) के प�रिश�

"च" एवं अनुपूरक सूची म� उ���खत प्रािथ�यों को एक-एक परिमट पूव� प्रितब�ों एवं सामा� शत�

के साथ नई वाहन प्र�ुत करने की शत� पर �ीकृत िकया जाता है । �ीकृत परिमट प्रा� करने

हे तु िद० 31-03-2009 का समय प्रदान िकया जाता है । त��ात �ीकृित �तः समा� समझी

जायेगी । साथ ही यह भी िनण�य िलया गया िक प�रिश� म� उ���खत प्रािथ�यों म� से िकसी के पास

पूव� म� िकसी माग� का परिमट पाया जाता है तो ऐसे प्राथ� को �ीकृत परिमट जारी न िकया जाय

तथा इस आशय का नोटरी से प्रमािणत शपथ पत्र भी िलया जाय। माग� पर संचािलत वाहनों से 50

प्रितशत वाहनों को प्रेमनगर से पंिडतवाड़ी-बसंत िवहार-ब�ीवाला

चौक-श�ीeaaMh वाया आई०एस०बी०टी०- �र�ना पुल-नेह�ग्राम था 50 प्रितशत

वाहनों को प्रेमनगर से ब�ूपुर-घ�ाघर-�ािलटी चौक- सव�चौक से रायपुर तक रोटे शन से

संचािलत िकया जाय। उ� ekXkksZa पर 133 इं च �ील बेस की वाहनों का संचालन अनुम� िकया

जाय तथा ekxZ पर संचािलत वाहनों को परिमट प्रा�� के एक वष� तक प्रितस्थापन न िकया जाय। "

5. Subsequently, the State Government issued the

notification under Section 68 (3) (ca) on 13.01.2009. Relevant extracts of the notification reads as follows:-

"प्रेमनगर-रायपुर वाया बल्लीवाला चौक, जी०एम०एस०रोड , ट�प ट�स ब��डं ग प्वाईन्ट, �शमला बाईपास, आई०एस०बी०ट�० , �रस्पनापुल, जोगीवाला, नेहरूग्राम"

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no prohibition on the authority of the Regional Transport Authority to formulate a new route. Learned counsel does not dispute the fact that the route in question was not an existing route till the decision was taken by Regional Transport Authority on 27.12.2008. He however, submits that under Section 72 (2) (XXII) the Regional Transport Authority is empowered to formulate a new route. Section 72 (2) (XXII) insofar as is relevant reads as follows:-

"(2)The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified description and may, subject to any rule that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely:-

(xxii) That the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not less than one month,-

(a) vary the conditions of the permit;

(b) attach to the permit further conditions:

Provided that the conditions specified in pursuance of clause (i) shall not be varied so as to alter the distance covered by the original route by more than 24 kilometers, and any variation within such limits shall be made only after the Regional Transport Authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or any part thereof;"

7. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner is that it

is settled position in law that only the State Government is competent to formulate a new route under Section 68 (3) (ca) of the Act. It is pointed out that Clause (ca) was inserted by amendment of the Act in the year 1994 by Act 54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994. The relevant extract of Section 68 (3) (ca) reads as follows:-

"(3) The State Transport Authority and every Regional Transport Authority shall give effect to any directions issued under section 67 and the State Transport Authority shall, subject to such directions and save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, exercise and discharge throughout the State the following powers and functions, namely;-

[(ca) Government to formulate routes for plying stage carriages;]

8. In support of the submission, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance firstly on the judgment of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court Smt. Urmila Trivedi Vs. State of U.P and others 2004 (2), All WC 1009, which overruled the earlier decision of learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Mithlesh Rani Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal 2 (1996) ACC 231; the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in Prashant Jaiswal etc. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others AIR 2010 Uttaranchal 45; the Special Appeal against which was dismissed vide Special Appeal No.145 of 2010 Prashant Jaiswal Vs. State of Uttarakhand on 05.10.2010, and; the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in T. Penchala Naidu Vs. Presiding Officer, State Transport Authority decided by learned Single Judge on 21.01.2003 reported as (2003) 0 AIR (Andhra Pradesh) 262.

9. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that they are the permit holders regarding the route mentioned in Resolution No.14(3) dated 27.12.2008 issued by the RTI (Regional Transport Authority,

Dehradun) which is the competent authority. He vehemently argued that, as per the notification dated 05.08.1994, Uttar Pradesh Government has issued the scheme regarding operation of Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation buses services in the city of Kanpur, Lucknow, Allahabad, Varanasi, Gorakhpur, Bareilly, Agra, Moradabad, Meerut, Ghaziabad and Dehradun within a radius of 20 Kilometers (in exceptional circumstances 25 Kilometers) of the city by private sector buses.

10. In pursuance to the said notification, the State Government has no role to play within the city of Dehradun within a radius of 20/25 Kilometers. The Regional Transport Authority has passed the Resolution No.14(3) dated 27.12.2008 as per law. The State Government has no power to fix route chart within the city of Dehradun. Accordingly, notification dated 13.01.2019 issued by the State of Uttarakhand is liable to be quashed.

11. "Route" has been defined in Section 2(38) as to mean a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another, while "stage carriage" has been defined in Section 2(40) which reads as under:-

"(40) "stage carriage" means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for individual passengers, either for the whole journey or for stages of the journey;"

12. Section 68(1) of the Act deals with Transport Authority which exercise and discharge power to be exercised by State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority.

13. No doubt, prior to the amendment, STA and RTA were competent to regulate the activities regarding formulation of routes, but after insertion of Section 68(3)(ca) by Act of 54 of 1994 (w.e.f. 14.11.1994) the power to formulate the routes vested absolutely in the State Government and by invoking the above power, the State Government has issued the above notification on 13.01.2009 regarding the route called Premnagar-Raipur which refers to a bus route. Accordingly, the R.T.A. is bound to follow the routes for plying stage carriage. Since the State Government had already issued notification on 13.01.2009 regarding Premnagar-Raipur route accordingly, the notification dated 27.12.2008 passed by the R.T.A. has lost its efficacy.

14. We do not find any room for taking any other view except to hold that the State Government is the only authority to formulate the route for plying the stage carriage.

15. We do not find any merit in the appeal and, accordingly, the special appeal is dismissed without any cost.

___________________ VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.

______________ RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.

Dated: 17th August, 2022 SK/RB