AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mahinder Narain, J.
(1) Mr. M.C. Garg has filed written statement on behalf of State Transport Authority, the added defendant.
(2) In this suit, the plaintiff seeks injunction, restraining the Nitin Transport Company, defendant No. 1, from violating the terms of the contract carriage permit, which has been granted to defendant No. 1.
(3) Issues framed by this Court, include an issue, as to whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file the suit.
(4) The Stage Carriage Permits or Contract Carriage Permits are granted under the Motor Vehicles Act. These permits are not granted under the Road Transport Corporation Act. This is clear from the perusal of Section 2(7) of the Motor Vehicle Act.
(5) The licensing procedure for the grant of Stage Carriage Permit and the Contract Carriage Permit are mentioned in sections 72 and 74 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The general conditions attached to all the permits are mentioned in section 84, and cancellation and suspension of permits are dealt with by section 86. The Authority to take action for breach of terms of permits is the State Transport Authority.
(6) Admittedly, the plaintiff, Delhi Transport Corporation, is not the State Transport Authority.
(7) AFFIDAVIT-EVIDENCE has been filed. I have perused the affidavit-evidence, filed by Mr. P. Rally, Secretary of the Delhi Transport Corporation. No part of the affidavit asserts that there is locus standi in the plaintiff to maintain the suit.
(8) In view of the provisions of section 86 of the Motor Vehicle Act, I do not think that the plaintiff can arrogate to itself the statutory functions of the State Transport Authority, mentioned in section 86 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
(9) The plaintiff has no locus standi to maintain the suit.
(10) The suit is, Therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.