M/s Una Highways Bus Service vs State of H.P. and Others

Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.—Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that two permits have been issued in favour of the private respondents against one bus No. HP 69-A-4948. On 07.09.2011, the Court has directed the Director, Transport to look into Annexures P-10 and P-11 and take appropriate action. The Director, Transport has filed the affidavit. According to the averments contained in the affidavit, respondent No. 5 was granted stage carriage route permit "Sri Naina Devi Ji, Guru Ka Lahore Via Toba-Anandpur Sahib-2RT" and bus No. HP-69A-4948 was being plied on this route. He deposited this route permit in the office of Regional Transport Officer, Bilaspur on 17.05.2010 due to non-settlement of time table. However, as per the record maintained in the office of Regional Transport Officer, Bilaspur, the certificate of registration of bus No. HP-69A-4948 was not deposited alongwith the route permit. u/s 14(2) of HPMC Taxation Act, 1972, it was necessary for respondent No. 5 to deposit the certificate of registration alongwith the route permit. According to the further averments contained in the affidavit, the Regional Transport Officer, Bilaspur, Shri Rakesh Verma relinquished the charge of the office on 17.05.2010, the day on which the said route permit was deposited. It is in these circumstances, the entries of route permit could not be attested in the record maintained in the Regional Transport Office. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 was granted permit by the R.T.A. in its meeting held on 06.08.2010 for the route "Sri Naina Devi Ji-Una Via- Nangal-Mehatpur-2RT". According to the affidavit, in case the provisions of Section 14(2) of HPMC Taxation Act, 1972 had been adhered to in letter and spirit, there was no occasion for committing any mistake by depicting bus No. HP-69A-4849 on both the route permits Annexures P-10 and P-11. This mistake has been now rectified and the than R.T.O., Bilaspur Shri Sunil Sharma, who was also asked by this Court to file a supplementary affidavit, has been asked to explain this lapse vide letter dated 03.10.2011 and it has been undertaken in the affidavit that appropriate action will be taken against the defaulting officer/officials after receipt of their reply.

We have also come through the affidavit filed by the than R.T.O., Bilaspur pursuant to order dated 08.12.2011. We are not satisfied with the averments contained in the affidavit filed by the than R.T.O., Bilaspur.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No. 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the then Regional Transport Officer, Bilaspur Shri Sunil Sharma and other defaulting officer/officials on the basis of communication dated 03.10.2011 within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.