AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Verma, J.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31- 1-2007(Annexure-5) passed by respondent No. 1 in Revision No. 3 of 2006, whereby the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal Uttarakhand, Dehradun (for short the S.T.A.T.) has allowed the revision petition of the respondent No. 4 and set aside the order dated 15-5-2006 passed by the Regional Transport Authority (for short RTA) in so far it related to item No. 10(3) regarding Premnagar-Gularghati motor road.
Relevant facts giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the petitioners as well as respondent No. 4 Surendra Singh Rana applied for permits and they were granted permanent stage carriage permit in respect of Premnagar-Gularghati road vide its meeting dated 15-5-2006 in respect of item No. 10(3) passed by the R.T.A. vide Annexure-1 (collectively). One existing operator i.e. respondent No. 4 being aggrieved by the order passed by the R.T.A. filed a revision No. 3 of 2006 before the S.T.A.T. challenging the order dated 15-5-2006.
A perusal of record shows that applications for grant of permits in respect of the aforesaid route-Premnagar-Gularghati road was considered by the R.T.A. in its meeting held on 15-5-2006 at Item No. 10 of the proceedings. The R.T.A. after having gone through the report of Joint Survey Committee dated 23-7-2003, granted four more permits in addition to 18 permits keeping in view the hike in population in the said route.
Aggrieved by the grant of permits in favour of the petitioners, one existing operator Surendra Kumar @ Surendra Singh filed a revision before the S.T.A.T. The STAT ultimately allowed the revision and cancelled the permits granted to the petitioners vide order dated 3 1-01-2007.
This writ petition has been preferred mainly on the ground that no restriction can be imposed on the limitation of issuing of permits; because the respondent No. 1 without considering the reply of respondent No. 2 passed the impugned judgment thereby setting aside the order of respondent No. 2; because the respondent No. 1 failed to appreciate the settled principle of law that the typographical mistake can be cured at any stage and because the impugned order has been passed by the respondent No. 1 without considering the material on record.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed before this Court including the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioners.
From a perusal of the impugned order dated 31-1-2007 passed by the STAT, it is obvious that the STAT has held that the report of the survey committee is illegal saying that no joint survey was made by the committee. It was also observed by the STAT that no report regarding road condition, availability of fuel and traffic control situation has been made and there is no report regarding the need of additional buses on the report. It was also observed that the objection of the Senior Superintending of Police made to the R.T.A. has not been considered. For these reasons, the revision petition was allowed.
It is undisputed fact that the R.T.A. has passed the order on the basis of the survey report dated 23-7-2003 wherein recommendation was made to increase two permits on the route in question. The order dated 15-5-2006 was admittedly passed by the R.T.A. as late as in the year 2006. It is also not disputed that by the order passed by the R.T.A. four more permits were issued in addition to existing 18 permits with a total of 22 permits.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the existing operators has no locus to file objections and the provision to impose limit on the number of permits have been taken away in view of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg, Vs. Union of India and others etc. etc., . It has been held by the Apex Court that the statutory authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are bound to keep a watch on the erroneous and illegal exercise of power in granting permits under the liberalised policy. The ratio of the judgment cannot be disputed. However, I am of the considered view that the existing operator has a right to file a revision before the STAT.
The learned STAT in its order has observed that in fact no survey was made jointly by the Additional City Magistrate Dehradun, Circle Officer, Traffic Police and Regional Transport Officer rather the draft report was prepared by the Regional Transport Officer, which was sent to other two officers for their consent to put signatures. Moreover, by that report recommendation was made for increase of two permits on the route in question, whereas the RTA has increased four permits. It also comes out from a perusal of the impugned order passed by the STAT that by his letter dated 2 1-2-2005 sent by the Senor Superintendent of Police Dehradun to the Regional Transport Officer that there has been hindrances in maintaining traffic control on the route in question. He also requested the authority concerned not to issue new permits unless the road on this route is adequately widened.
Before the learned S.T.A.T. it was contended on behalf of the respondent No. 4-revisionist that the joint survey committee had recommended for grant of two extra permits while R.T.A. intended to grant only three permits, but the R.T.A. had issued four more permits. Be that as it may. In the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it is stated in paragraph No. 5 that the applications for grant of permit in the route in question was considered by the answering respondents in the meeting of Regional Transport Authority held on 15-5-2006 at item No. 10 of the proceedings and after having gone through the report of Joint Survey Committee dated 23-7-2003, four more permits were granted in the route keeping in view the population hike in the route. On that score, the order of the R.T.A. cannot be said to be conflicting in itself. At the most there was only an arithmetical mistake.
The question whether the survey report has been made by the two officers jointly or not relates to factual aspect of the case, which cannot be examined in exercise of writ jurisdiction. However, the alleged report referred to by the learned STAT was made in the year 2003. Since then more than six years have already elapsed and the condition of the road might have been improved by now. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the matter deserves to be remanded to the R.T.A. for getting a proper joint survey by the authorities concerned and if any recommendations are made by the joint survey committee, the applications of the petitioners may be considered for grant of new permits on the route in question. The learned S.T.A.T. while allowing the revision has already remanded the matter to the R.T.A.
For the reasons and discussion above, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The matter is remanded to the R.T.A., who shall get a joint survey conducted afresh by the authorities concerned, as has already been directed by the S.T.A.T., and after receipt of the survey report, if any recommendations are made by them, the applications of the petitioners may be considered afresh for grant of stage carriage permits on the route in question.