AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
The petitioner has challenged vires of Clause 4(19) of the Reciprocal Agreement (Annexure P/1) entered into between the State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Rajasthan. In accordance with the aforesaid condition of the agreement, the vehicles having sitting capacity of less than 50+2 would not ply on the corridor route.
The petitioner applied for renewal of permanent permit for a route Vijaynagri to Suvasara, two single trip daily. The aforesaid application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner offered a vehicle of 2013 model having sitting capacity of 34+2. Because the route of total distance of 37.5 kms. was an inter-State corridor route, hence, in accordance with the reciprocal agreement between State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Rajasthan, the permit could not be renewed.
The provision of Clause 19 of the agreement has been considered by this court in W.P. 3711/2013 and other connected petitions. This court disposed of the aforesaid petition vide order dt. 27.9.2013 and passed the following order:-
This order shall decide WP No. 8967/2012 [Chhaganlal Gayari Vs. State of MP & Ors.], W.P. No. 9401/2012 [Shivprakash Bairagi Vs. State of MP & Ors.], W.P. No. 9402/2012 [Shantilal Gayari Vs. State of MP & Ors], WP No. 9409/2012 [Surajmal Gayari Vs. State of MP & Ors], W.P. No. 9402/2013 [Smt. Lalita Devi Vs. State of MP & Ors], W.P. No. 903/2012 [Smt. Lalita Devi Vs. State of MP & Ors], W.P. No. 933/2012 [Smt. Sunita Devi Vs. State of MP & Ors], W.P. No. 934/2013 [Dalchand Dhakad Vs. State of MP & Ors], W.P. No.956/2013 [Kailash Chand Bohara Vs. State of MP & Ors], W.P. No. 1192/2013 [Raghu Singh Vs. State of MP & Ors], W.P. No. 1287/2013 [Suresh Singh Vs. State of MP & Ors], W.P. No. 1295/2013 [Rajesh Babi Vs. State of MP & Ors], WP No. 1350/2013 [M/s. Ram Chandra Goda Ji Vs. State of MP & Ors], W.P. No. 1907/2013 [Satyanarayan Rathore Vs. State of MP & Ors] and W.P. No. 4258/2013 [Krishanpal Singh Vs. State of MP & Ors] as they arise out of common question of law and facts.
W.P. No. 3711/2011 [Satyanarayan Gaur Vs. State of MP & Ors] shall be the leading case.
The petitioner has challenged Clause 19 of the Agreement entered into between the State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Rajasthan, dated 19th July, 2007 (Annexure P/1) published in the M.P. Rajpatra, dated 21-08-2007, by which it has been provided that the buses which would be plied under the Agreement, shall not be less than 50 seaters.
It is submitted that the aforesaid Clause is contrary to Rule 77 of Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 as amended on 24th November, 2010. As per the aforesaid rule, the buses having capacity of less than 50 seaters can also be plied. It is submitted that u/s 72(2)(vii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for providing such facilities in the agreement a provision could have been made in respect of maximum number of seating capacity of passengers and not for minimum number of passengers. It is submitted that the aforesaid Clause 19 of the paragraph 4 of the Agreement may be struck down.
Shri Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General for the State submits that this is a reciprocal agreement between the State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Rajasthan and as per the terms and conditions agreed between the States, such agreement has been finalized and has been notified u/s 88(5) & (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is submitted that if there is some grievance it could be sorted out by both the States and for this purpose he prays for sixty days time to take up this matter with the State of Rajasthan and to sort out the problem as has been agitated by the petitioner in this petition.
Though, the aforesaid contention is opposed by Shri Dudawat, learned counsel for the petitioner, but considering the fact that it is a reciprocal agreement entered between the State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Rajasthan, by which certain terms and conditions have been agreed and those have been modified, we find that the State of Madhya Pradesh can take up this matter with the State of Rajasthan to sort out the problem of transport operators.
The main contention of Shri Dudawat, learned counsel for the petitioner is that if this capacity of minimum 50 seaters remains as it is, then the luxury buses of better facilities cannot be plied, which will affect the quality and better facilities to the passengers. In case the buses of lesser capacity are permitted to be plied on the inter-state routes, the transport operators can provide luxury buses and also the buses of better facilities which would facilitate the public at large.
It is also submitted by Shri Dudawat, learned counsel that most of the petitioners are operating the buses on the routes which are between 22 and 50 kilometers. For the small route the buses of 50 seaters capacity may not be monetary viable and the vehicles of less than 50 seater capacity can ply profitably and can serve the public at large.
Considering the aforesaid, we find it appropriate that this matter can be sorted out at this stage by State of Madhya Pradesh with State of Rajasthan by mutual negotiations and if both the States agree to amend Clause 19 of the Agreement, then it will solve the problem of transport operators. While considering this, the State of Madhya Pradesh can raise the aforesaid contentions during the conversation and we hope that this aspect shall be take care of by both the States and if both the States agree then appropriate provision can be made in the Agreement by amendment.
In the aforesaid circumstances, we find it appropriate to dispose of the matter with the following directions:-
(I) The State of Madhya Pradesh shall take up the matter with State of Rajasthan to sort out the aforesaid problem of the petitioners.
(II) The aforesaid exercise shall be initiated by the State of Madhya Pradesh expeditiously as far as possible within a period of thirty days and to finalize it within a period of ninety days.
(III) While considering the aforesaid, both the States shall look into the grievances and difficulties of the transport operators and also to the fact that if buses of better facility or luxury buses can be provided on the routes.
(IV) The aforesaid decision be duly notified by the States and if any person remains aggrieved, he shall be free to re-agitate the matter in accordance with law.
(V) The order dated 04-07-2013 passed in this petition shall continue in all the matters, decided today by this order, till the decision by the respondents in this regard and the petitioners shall be entitled to operate the buses as directed by the interim order dated 04-07-2013.
No orders as to costs.
The controversy involved in this petition has already been covered by the order passed by this court, hence, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) That the State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Rajasthan shall consider the clause of the Agreement that the vehicles having sitting capacity of less than 50+2 would not ply on the corridor route, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Up to that period, the application of the petitioner for renewal of the permit be not rejected on the ground that the vehicle of the petitioner is having sitting capacity of less than 50+2, however, the authority is at liberty to consider the model of the vehicle.
(ii) That it further observed that if within a period of three months no decision be taken, the authority shall be at liberty to pass order on the renewal application in accordance with Reciprocal Agreement.
No order as to costs.