AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Verma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
By means of this writ petition, the Petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari to set aside the condition No. 2 and 3 of the order dated 21-6-2004 of the resolution No. 4 passed by the Respondent, which was issued to the Petitioner on 27-9-2004 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition). Petitioner has further sought a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to issue the permit to the Petitioner for plying the passenger vehicle on the sanctioned routes in compliance of order dated 26-11-1990.
Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent. The affidavit is duly sworn in by the then Regional Transport Officer, Haldwani. In Clause F of the counter affidavit, it is inter alia stated that "The applications of the Petitioner and others were placed before the Regional Transport Authority, Kumaon in its meeting held on 21-6-2004 and a permanent permit was granted to Petitioner for the route Haldwani-Kaladhungi-Bazpur-Doraha-Kashipur subject to the conditions as prescribed. Against the grant of the permit to the Petitioner an existing permit holder Sri Manoj Kumar has filed a revision No. 8 of 2004 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Dehradun and on 22-7-2004 and the Appellate Tribunal passed the order that the opposite party No. 1(Regional Transport Authority) shall not issue permit to opposite party No. 2 to 4 against the conditions (in the revision). This order is still effective and on the other hand in revision No. 2 of 2003 (Shankar Dutt Joshi v. R.T.A.), the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Dehradun has issued the interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo, which is still in operation. Since the matter is subjudiced before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Uttaranchal, Dehradun as such permit could not be issued and the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition during the pendency of the revision before the S.T.A."
The Petitioner has filed the rejoinder affidavit and along with the rejoinder affidavit, she has filed two documents, which are question-answers showing that both the revisions-namely Revision No. 8 of 2004 and Revision No. 2 of 2003 have already been dismissed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (S.T.A.T.). The information has been obtained to that effect on 15-10-2010 from the office of the S.T.A.T.
Since the fate of the two revisions, as mentioned in the counter affidavit, has ended in dismissal, therefore, there is no reason to deny grant of permit in favour of the Petitioner by the Regional Transport Authority concerned on the route Haldwani-Kaladhuni-Bazpur-Doraha-Kashipur, as mentioned in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent.
In the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The Petitioner shall be entitled to grant of permit on Haldwani-Kaladhungi-Bazpur-Doraha-Kashipur route by the R.T.A. in accordance with the Rules and with such conditions as envisaged by Sub-section(2) of Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as deemed proper, but by ignoring the conditions as imposed under impugned resolution No. 4 dated 21-6-2004.
The writ petition is allowed with the above observations. Costs easy.