Rabindra Kumar Ray vs Regional Transport Officer and Others

P.K. Tripathy, J.—Mr. P. K. Panda, learned Standing Counsel (Transport) states that, as yet the opposite party members have given no instruction to him. Regard being had to the nature of the dispute, which is purely based on law, we heard the parties and dispose of this Writ Petition at the stage of admission.

Petitioner''s grievance, stated by Learned Counsel for the petitioner, is as against the instruction, Annexure-6 issued by the Transport Commissioner-cum-Chairman, STA, Orissa, Cuttack, vide his Letter No. 24291, dated 20.11.1997. On the ground of saturation/over-saturation of certain routes and non-availability of adequate transport services in some other routes in under-developed area in the State, Opp. Party No. 3 has issued the above instruction, Annexure-6. The operative part of that instruction/letter reads as follows :

"3. In view of the above facts it has been decided that before registration of new stage carriage or old vehicles of other States in the above mentioned regions, the concerned operators should obtain a route permits clearance certificate either from the STA or RTA where he wants to put his stage carriage in operation. Without such route permit clearance certificate, the vehicle should not be registered. The above instruction should be followed scrupulously."

Learned Counsel for the petitioner invites out attention to the provision in Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and states that there is no stipulation, or restriction for registration of a vehicle as imposed by the Opp. Party No. 3 in Annexure-6. Accordingly he prays to quash that instruction.

Learned Standing Counsel (Transport) on the other hand states that the Opp. Party No. 3 only with a view to regulate proper transport service and conveyance in all the localities, has issued that instruction as a matter of public policy and therefore, that does not offend the aforesaid statutory provision.

Upon hearing the contentions of the parties in the aforesaid manner, we find that the anxiety of Opp. Party No. 3 is appreciable, but he has adopted a wrong method for ensuring proper transport Conveyance for the public at large in the underdeveloped areas. Registration of vehicle has to be regulated by the aforesaid statutory provision and the authority cannot impose any additional condition being not so provided in the statute book. However, to regulate plying of the stage carriages in different areas while issuing permanent/ temporary permit, the opposite party members have the discretion to regulate the same in the manner the Opp. Party No. 3 has thought. Therefore, that restriction, if found applicable or necessary, may be invoked or applied, as the case may be, while granting permanent/ temporary permit, but that restriction cannot be imposed on the application for registration of the vehicle. Under such circumstance, we quash Annexure-6 so far as it relates to the instruction in directing the sub-ordinate authorities not to register new vehicles.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Requisites by registered post along with copy of the Writ Petition be filed by tomorrow 31.8.2004 as undertaken by the petitioner, to communicate this order to the opposite party members.

N. Prusty, J.

I agree.