Rajehdra Prasad and Others vs The State of Bihar and Others

The information on the present strength of the staff has been given by learned A.A.G. 2. This is annexure F to an affidavit which has been filed today.

There is no issue nor any one has raised it between the Petitioners or the Respondents that even if the sanctioned strength of the staff is to be looked into, the personnel available are by far much less. One cannot work the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 with staff which is deficient whether it is the posts of Joint State Transport Commissioner, Regional Transport Authority. District Transport Officer. Motor Vehicles inspectors, Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Inspectors/another set of Enforcement Inspectors and Mobile Squad constables. Except the State Transport Commissioner who otherwise is the Secretary to the government also there is, lack of staff at every step. This is a matter of record. Barring the remarks column the rest of the columns are reproduced:

Below is the chart as given to the Court indicating number of existing classes of Officers in Transport Department as laid, down in Rule 258 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1992 :

Name of Post No. of Sanct. Post. No. of Fill. Post. No. of Cac. Post.

State Transport Commissioner 1 - 1

Joint State Transport Commissioner 2 1 1

Dy. Asst. Transport Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Regional Transport Authority 8 3 5

District Transport Officer 37 20 17

Motor Vehicles inspectors 23 9 Regular 4 Deputation

Enforcement Officer 10 2 8

Enforcement Inspector 7 7 -

Enforcement Inspector 23 17 6

(Extracted from annoxuso F)

The Court has sufficiently reflected on the rules in the order dated 7 November. 2003 on L.P.A. No. 1255 of 1998.

It appears that the administrative set up at present is still based on the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939. The set up has yet to be made on the basis of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1983. The new Act brings in many more subjects which were simply not there in the earlier enactment of 1939. Clearly, the administration has been updated and modernised and given the full strength only then the administration will work the legislation. This is not only a statutory obligation of the State of Bihar but also an obligation to public interest. Without the full complement of staff the government is harming its own interests.

Ultimately, spelling out the administration is the job of the State government. Otherwise, it is obliged to ensure that the administration is compatible with what the new Act has provided. There is some incongruity bordering on gross deficiency of staff in the set up which exists today. It is not necessary to record the consent of A.A.G. 2. This is a matter of record. For instance, Bihar has 37 districts but only 20 posts of District Transport Officer are manned leaving 17 posts unfilled. The presumption is irresistible that either one District Transport Officer is jumping round in more than one district or in the alternative some districts are just without postings. The post of Motor Vehicles Inspector is worse with 37 districts only 23 Motor Vehicles Inspectors are there. The posts are manned by only 9 substantive staff and four have been borrowed.

The administration should be structured as provided by law with efficiency not deficiency. This sort of malaise has already afflicted the administration in Bihar. It is best that home work is done on the desks of the government. This is not a matter to be left for counter and rejoinder affidavits. It will only be appropriate that the Secretary concerned, the Finance Secretary and Chief Secretary are present in Court.

Counsel for the Petitioners have placed their suggestions and given a copy of it to learned A.A.G. 2. They submit that whatever suggestion they have made on the installation of an administrative set up are extracted from the rules of the other States.

Put up on Tuesday, i.e., 18 November, 2003.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary Bihar.