Uttarakhand High Court
Through: Shri M.C. Kandpal vs State Of Uttarakhand on 5 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 3275 (MS) of 2022
Mukesh Upadhyay
and another. ................Petitioners.
Through: Shri M.C. Kandpal, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Shri Chitrarath Kandpal, Shri
Tarun Mohan and Shri Devesh Kandpal,
learned counsel for the petitioners.
-Versus-
State of Uttarakhand
and another. .........Respondents.
Through: Shri Suyash Pant, learned Standing
Counsel for State / respondents.
Date of Hearing and Judgment : 05.01.2023
Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for
the following reliefs:
"i. Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Certiorari to quash the order dated 12.09.2022 passed by
the respondent no. 2 and annexed as Annexure No. 6 to
this writ petition.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to consider
the case of the petitioner for issuance of the sanctioned
route permit on the basis of the inquiry report of the
Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital."
2. The facts, at this stage, are not much disputed except on
certain issues. On 09.12.2010, the Government of Uttarakhand
issued a notification under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles
Act for allowing the operators to ply City and Intercity Buses
centralized at Lalkaun, between Haldwani to Rudrapur, Kichha -
Rudrapur and adjoining routes. On 01.02.2011, on the basis of
aforesaid Notification, the Secretary, Road Transport Authority,
Haldwani called an emergency meeting regarding disposal of
pending applications for sanction of the route permit. 77 persons
including six petitioners, who had filed WPMS No. 1209 of 2010
before this Court, have been granted route permit with certain
conditions. One of the conditions mentioned in the route permit
was that if granted route permits were not lifted by the applicants
within two months, the same should be cancelled automatically.
It is alleged by the petitioners that between 07.04.2011 and
08.04.2011, four operators were secretly informed by the RTO
about the grant of route permit but petitioners were never
informed. Thereafter, between 26.07.2012 and 27.07.2012,
petitioners filed an application for sanction of the route permit
and for extending the time period to lift the same. The
respondent no. 2 - Regional Transport Authority, Haldwani
constituted a sub Committee under the Chairmanship of ARTO.
The Sub Committee has submitted its report to the Additional
Commissioner, Nainital. The report reveals that all the persons, to
whom permits have been sanctioned, were informed on
09.02.2011 but petitioners claimed that they were never informed.
On 21.12.2017, the matter was inquired by the Additional
Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital and the Additional
Commissioner came to the conclusion that petitioners were not
informed about the grant of route permit and referred the matter
for reconsideration to respondent no. 2 - Regional Transport
Authority, Haldwani. On 12.09.2022, the matter was rejected by
the respondent no. 2 - Regional Transport Authority, Haldwani
without considering the report of the Addl. Commissioner by
stating that the DGC has given a legal advice that the RTA cannot
review its own decision and petitioners can challenge the order
before the appellate authority.
3. In view of the findings recorded by the Addl.
Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, this Court is of the opinion that
fault lies on the part of respondent no. 2 - Regional Transport
Authority, Haldwani, in not communicating the grant of route
permit in faovur of the petitioners. The operative portion of the
findings recorded by Addl. Commissioner reads as under:
"अतः उ� से �� है िक श्री मुकेश उपा�ाय एवं सुश्री आकांशा जोशी को
प्रािधकरण की बैठक िदनांक 1.2.2011 म� �ीकृत परिमट की सूचना एवं
परिमट प्रा� करने हेतु आव�क शत� की जानकारी िनधा��रत समया�ग�त
होना पु� नहीं होता। अतः प्रािधकरण �ारा उनके प्रकरण म� पुनः िवचार
िकया जाना �ायोिचत होगा।"
4. Thus, it is clear that respondent no. 2 - Regional Transport
Authority, Haldwani, in a very mala fide manner, did not inform
about the grant of route permit to the petitioners and now, the
respondent no. 2 - Regional Transport Authority, Haldwani, is
taking a plea that order passed by it cannot be reviewed by it and
petitioners cannot be allowed to operate their buses, as stage
carriage.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the State would request to
grant an opportunity to file counter affidavit but this Court is of
the opinion that the order passed by the respondent no. 2 -
Regional Transport Authority, Haldwani, Haldwani itself reveals
that there is only one reason for rejecting the application of the
petitioners for grant of route permit that it lacks power to review
its own order.
6. Admittedly, in a Certiorari Proceeding, the Authorities
cannot take a plea, which is they have not taken in the order that
has been impugned. In this case, the facts are not disputed in
view of the report of the Additional Commissioner, Kumaon
Division, Nainital. Hence, writ petition is allowed. Order dated
12.09.2022 passed by respondent no. 2 is hereby quashed.
Respondent no. 2 is directed to issue route permit in favour of the
petitioners, granted to them in the year 2011 but never
communicated to them and extend the time. However, there is a
rider that petitioners shall produce their vehicle(s) before
respondent no. 2, who shall verify their fitness, if vehicle(s) are fit
to run, only then respondent no. 2 shall grant extension of route
permit. The whole exercise shall be completed by respondent no.
2 within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy
of this order.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.)
(Grant urgent certified copy of this judgment, as per Rules)
SKS
