M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 27.06.2005 issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand, Ranch! whereby he has cancelled the letter of Authority granted by the Joint Transport Commissioner being the Registering Authority to the petitioner in terms of Rule 63 of the Motor Vehicles Rules.
2. Petitioner's case is that he applied for letter of Authority under the provisions of Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 63 of the M.V. Rules, 1989 for the purpose of Authorized Testing Station. It is stated by the petitioner that he possessed all the qualifications and eligibility criteria for the purposes of operating Authorized Testing Station. The Registering Authority, being the Joint Transport Commissioner, after having been satisfied with the requirements complied with by the petitioner, granted Letter of Authority to him to operate Authorized Testing Station at Lohardaga. The said Joint Transport Commissioner, being the Registering Authority, thereafter, allowed the petitioner to shift his Testing Station from Lohardaga to Ranch! in purported exercise of power under Rule 65 (d) of the said Rules. Surprisingly the petitioner learnt from the newspaper that the letter of Authority granted to several Authorized Testing Stations including that, of the petitioner, have been cancelled by the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand.
3. Curiously enough two counter affidavits have been filed; one by the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Govt. of Jharkhand who is represented by the State Counsel and another by the Joint Transport Commissioner, who is represented by a private counsel engaged by him.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 4, the Joint Transport Commissioner it is stated that along with the application form the petitioner submitted various documents and an enquiry was asked for from the D.T.O. Lohardaga. The D.T.O Lohardaga vide his enquiry report physically verified the site on which the authorized testing station was to be established and found the statement given by the petitioner correct and accordingly reported to respondent No. 4, advising him that the Letter of Authority can be issued to the petitioner. It is also stated that the affidavit of the petitioner was also called for under the provisions of Rule 63 for a personal hearing by respondent No. 4 and he explained fully that the petitioner possessed all the eligibility conditions as is mandatory under Rule 63 (3) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The site of the authorized Testing Station at Lohardaga which was shown to the DTO. Lohardaga belongs to the own relative of the petitioner i.e. the sister-in-law of the petitioner and accordingly the lease executed for the site was also produced before the Joint Transport Commissioner. In the counter affidavit it is also stated by respondent No. 4 that he is the Registering Authority notified under Section 213 of the M.V. Act for the purpose of Rules 63 to 72 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 read with Section 56 of the M.V. Act, 1988 and he has been given the power under Rules 63 to 72 of the CMV Rules, 1989 and that he is a Registering Authority as well as empowered to regulate and control the functioning of the Authorized Testing Station. It is also stated that respondent No. 2, Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi is not the Registering Authority and as per the Rules of 1989 only the Registering Authority i.e. respondent No. 4 has been empowered under Rule 63 to grant Letter of Authority as well as he has been given power under Rule 69 to suspend or cancel the Letter of Authority or to forfeit the security deposited by the petitioner.
5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand, it is stated that letter of Authority was granted to the petitioner by the Registering Authority without any inquiry, sport verification and without considering the eligibility criteria and minimum requirement of land and equipment as required under the Rule. The Registering Authority also did not consider as to how many testing stations are required in different area of the State and how many licences for testing stations should be granted to the reserved category and weaker sections of the State. With regard to his power the answering respondent has stated that he has delegated his power to the Registering Authority and therefore, he is empowered to sign the Letter of Authority of testing stations. The respondent, being the Principal Secretary of the Department has jurisdiction of control, superintendence and review of all matters of Transport Department. The respondent's further case is that the Letter of Authority which has been granted by Registering Authority to the petitioner is void ab initio because the petitioner was neither competent to be granted fitness certificate to commercial vehicle as he is not qualified Automobile Engineer or Mechanical Engineer as provided by the Act nor the petitioner possesses required land for establishment of testing station. Petitioner has submitted his affidavit before signing of lease agreement with the owner of the land. It is further stated that the affidavit in the lease agreement was submitted by the petitioner to the Registering Authority for shifting the place of testing station from Lohardaga to Ranchi. The Registering Authority, in connivance with the petitioner, overlooked wrong submission of the petitioner regarding the lease of the land which shows the mala fide intention of the petitioner. He has further not verified the papers which was submitted by the petitioner and allowed shifting of place of testing station from Lohardaga to Ranchi and on the same previous Letter of Authority dated 20.4.2005 endorsement for shifting of testing station was made from Lohardaga to Ranchi. The order of shifting of place was signed on 26.5.2005 which shows gross negligence and illegal act of Registering Authority. It is further stated that the Registering Authority while shifting the place of testing station from Lohardaga to Ranchi has not verified the land i.e. so-called testing station of the petitioner and did not ascertain the minimum requirement eligibility condition and equipment as required under the Act. It is further stated by the answering respondents that the petitioner submitted his application for testing station in form 40 in which he has mentioned that all required machineries and equipment will be equipped after granting of testing station as per Rule 63, Sub-Rule 3(e). From perusal of application of the petitioner it is clear that the required machineries were not available at the time of granting Letter of Authority to the petitioner. It is also stated that in the matter of grant of Letter of Authority to the petitioner originally at Lohardaga, lease agreement of the land was signed on 19.4.2005 but surprisingly the report of D.T.O. Lohardaga regarding availability and suitability of land for establishment of authorized testing station was submitted on 17.4.2005 before execution of lease deed Le. on 19.4.2005 and the Letter of Authority was granted on 20.4.2005. The respondent has further stated that the petitioner himself admits that he is an electrical engineer whereas the provision of Central Act provides that testing station should be run by an automobile or mechanical engineer. It is stated that the experience of the petitioner in automobile engineer is also not valid because his experience certificate is of surveyor in Insurance Company and as such according to Rule 63 of the Central Rule, 1989 the petitioner is not qualified to be granted fitness certificate for running testing station. The respondent further stated that the impugned order of cancellation is legal and valid because proper procedure and established norms of the State Government has not been followed before issuance of Letter of Authority and the Registering Authority was misused his delegated power in collusion with the petitioner. He has further stated that for this conduct of the Joint Transport Commissioner recommendation has been sent for taking departmental action against him.
6. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner firstly drawn my attention to different provisions of the Act and the Rules and submitted that the impugned order of cancellation is absolutely illegal and victative of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as Rule 69 itself contemplates observance of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel secondly submitted that the Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Govt. of Jharkhand is neither the Registering Authority under the Act nor he has any jurisdiction to issue the impugned order. Learned counsel further submitted that the Joint Transport Commissioner has been notified as the Registering Authority for grant of letter of Authority to the Authorized Testing Stations vide notification dated 21.12.2000, (Annexure 4). By another notification dated 10.9.2003 the above notification was modified only to the extent that the countersign of the fitness certificate was given by the earlier Motor Vehicle Inspector whereas the Joint Transport Commissioner remains the Regulating Authority for running and control of the Authorized Testing Station.
7. On the other hand, learned Advocate General, at the very outset, very fairly submitted that the Joint Transport Commissioner was notified as a Registering Authority but merely because power was delegated to him to act as the Registering Authority, he could not have exercised that power arbitrarily, whimsically and against the mandatory requirements of law. Learned counsel submitted that from the facts stated in the counter-affidavits it is clear that the petitioner, although did not fulfil the conditions laid down in the Rules was granted Letter of Authority for operating testing station. Learned counsel further submitted that although the Letter of Authority was granted for Lohardaga District but few days after the Registering Authority allowed the petitioner to shift his testing station from Lohardaga to Ranchi without making any inquiry as to whether the petitioner fulfills all the conditions for operating testing station at Ranchi.
8. Before appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, I would like to refer some of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Section 56 of the Act contemplates establishment of authorized testing station. According to this provision unless a transport vehicle carries certificate of fitness issued by the prescribed authority or by authorized testing station, the said transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered under the Act. Rule 63 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, lays down the procedure with regard to regulation and control of authorized testing stations. For better appreciation Rules 63 is quoted herein-below :
'63. Regulation and Control of Authorised Testing Stations.-(1) No operator of an authorized testing station shall issue or renew a certificate of fitness to a transport vehicle under Section 56 without a letter of authority in Form 39 granted by Registering Authority.
(2) An application for grant or renewal of a letter of authority under Sub-rule (1) shall be made in Form 40, to the registering authority having jurisdiction in the area in which the service station or garage is situated and will be accompanied by :
(a) the appropriate fee as specified in Rule 81;
(b) a security deposit of Rs. one lack in such manner as may be specified by the State Govt.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this rule and Rules 64 to 72, the registering authority means an officer not below the rank of the Regional Transport officer of the Motor Vehicles Department established under Section 213.
(3) A registering authority shall when considering an application for the grant of renewal of a letter of authority, have regard to the following matters namely :
(a) The applicant or atleast one of the members of the staff employed by him for the inspection of transport vehicles for the purpose of issue or renewal of certificate of fitness possessed the following minimum qualifications :
(i) A three years diploma in automobile engineering or mechanical engineering or an equivalent qualification;
(ii) Experience of minimum service of five years in an automobile workshop undertaking repairs of heavy goods vehicles, heavy passenger motor vehicles, medium motor vehicles and light motor vehicles;
(iii) A driver licence to drive motor cycle heavy passenger motor vehicle and heavy goods vehicle with a minimum driving experience of not less than five years;
(iv) Thorough knowledge of the Act and the Rules made thereunder especially the chapter relating to registration of motor vehicles and construction equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles;
(b) The premises where the authorised testing station is to be housed is either owned by the applicant or is taken on lease by him or is hired in his name and it was minimum of one acre of land for administrative section, reception room and sanitary block and space of erection of testing equipment and other apparatus;
(c) Inspection lanes are provided adjacent to the building in the same compound or at other places approved by the registering authority.
(d) Testing equipment and apparatus are installed in such manner that vehicles may pass through with ease and speed;
(e) The applicant maintains in good condition, the equipment and apparatus for undertaking test pertaining to exhaust gas, engine tuning, engine analysis, smoke emission, brake system, head lights, wheel alignment, compressors, speedometers and other like components.
(f) The financial resources of the applicant are sufficient to provide for its continued maintenance;
(g) The applicant maintains an up-to-date copy of the Act, these rules and the concerned States Motor Vehicles Rules.
(4) The registering authority shall also, when considering on application under this rule, take into consideration the fact that the setting up of the authorized testing station will improve the availability of testing facilities in the area both in relation to the number of vehicles and proximity to such facility.
(5) The registering authority may, on receipt of an application under Sub-rule (2) and after satisfying himself that the applicant has complied with the requirement of sub-rules (3) and (4), grant or renew the letter of authority in Form 39 :
Provided that no application of a letter of authority shall be refused by the registering authority unless the applicant is given an opportunity of being heard and reasons for such refusal are given in writing by the registering authority.'
9. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision it is manifestly clear that an application for grant of renewal of Letter of Authority must be accompanied by appropriate fee and security deposit. The applicant or at least one of the members of the Staff employed by him for inspection of transport vehicles must possess qualification of three years diploma in automobile engineering or mechanical engineering or an equivalent qualification. The applicant must have experience of minimum five years in an automobile workshop undertaking repairs of heavy goods vehicle etc. The premises where the authorized testing station is to be established must either be owned by the applicant or is taken on lease in his name and the area of the land must be at least one acre. Inspection lanes must be provided adjacent to the building in the same compound or other places approved by the Registering Authority. It is stated that equipment and apparatus are installed in such a manner that the vehicle may pass through with ease and speed. The applicant must also satisfy the authority that he shall maintain the equipment and apparatus in good condition.
10. Some of the vehicle owners have intervened in this writ petition and vehemently challenged the grant of licence (Letter of Authority) to the petitioner for operating testing station. In one of the intervention petitions it is stated that a report was submitted before the Joint Transport Commissioner to the effect that the petitioner possessed leasehold land at Lohardaga but after the report was submitted the petitioner got the land on lease. Not only that the Letter of Authority granted to the petitioner for Lohardaga has been allowed to be shifted to Ranchi without any inquiry to the effect that whether the petitioner fulfills all the criteria for grant of licence/ Letter of Authority for operating testing station at Ranchi. It is further stated that the petitioner not only gave wrong information in the application for grant of Letter of Authority but also misled the Registering Authority and procured the licence.
11. Although the writ petitioner has challenged the authority of the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Govt. of Jharkhand in canceling the Letter off Authority granted to him by the Registering Authority but having regard to the stand taken from the side of the Government and the interveners, this Court can proceed to inquire into the state of affairs of the litigation in the interest of justice and in furtherance of public interest.
12. The Registering Authority, in arbitrary exercise of his power and without following the Act and the Rules strictly, has granted Letter of Authority to the petitioner and such illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated by quashing the order passed by the Principal Secretary, Transport Department who is a superior authority than the Registering Authority.
13. Admittedly no public notice was issued inviting applications for the grant of Letter of Authority for operating testing station in the district of Ranchi. The petitioner, on his own, submitted an application before the Registering Authority. A typed copy of the application in form 40 filed by the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Column 8 of the said form is worth to be reproduced hereinbelow :
'8 Staff engaged in different cadres (i) Manager (i) will be en-gaged after grant of authority let-ter.(ii)Foreman(iii) Mechanic(iv) Helpers (ii) I have al-ready employed a Mechanical Engineer.(v)Other administra- tive staff.'
14. Respondent No. 4, the Registering Authority, in his counter affidavit, has annexed the original copy of the application in form 40 submitted by the petitioner. In column 8 of this hand written application the petitioner has mentioned the facts otherwise. Column 8 of the handwritten application is reproduced hereinbelow :
'8 Staff engaged in different cadres (i) Manager Staff in differentcadres will be engaged on hearing of grant of licence from you.(ii) Foreman (iii) Mechanic (iv) Helpers(v) Other administrative staff.'
It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner has tried to mislead the Court by annexing a copy of form 40 with incorrect statements. In the original form he has said that the staff will be engaged on hearing of grant of licence but in the typed copy (An-nexure 1) he has mentioned that a Mechanical Engineer has already been employed.
15. Similarly before grant of Letter of Authority an inquiry was conducted, as alleged by the Registering Authority, and a report was submitted. In the report it was mentioned that the petitioner is holding lease hold land in Lohardaga district but from perusal of the records it appears that after submission of the report a so-called agreement was executed on 25.5.2005. The Registering Authority, therefore, without proper verification of the fact that the petitioner fulfilled the mandatory conditions, issued Letter of Authority on 20.4.2005 for operating testing station in the district of Lohardaga. Curiously enough a few days thereafter the petitioner was allowed to shift the place of testing station from Lohardaga to Ranchi by making a simple endorsement in the Letter of Authority. For better appreciation the extract of the Letter of Authority which has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition, is reproduced hereinbelow :
'FORM-39
See Rule 63(1) and (5)
LETTER OF AUTHORITY ISSUED TO AN
AUTHORISED TESTING STATION
LETTER OF AUTHORITY NO :
01/2005 Dated 20/04/2005
The letter of Authority is hereby granted to Shri Rajendra Prasad Agrawal S/o Late Madan Lal, Ratu Road, Ranchi for the establishment of a testing station under Sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Act of the premises M/s. Jharkhand Motors Fitness Centre, Kutmu, Kemo Basti, Patra Toli, near Electric Office, Lohardaga for the purpose of issue and renewal of CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS to transport vehicles, subject to provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 made thereunder;
The letter of Authority is valid from 20.04.2005 to 19.04.2010 as per conditions attached.
Dated 20.04.2005
Sd/ Registering Authority Transport
Deptt. Jharkhand, Ranchi.
Allowed to shift the place of testing station from Lohardaga to Ranchi as per Rule 65(d) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989.
The letter of Authority is valid upto 19.04.2010.
Sd/
Registering Authority
Transport Deptt Jharkhand
Ranchi.'
16. It is well-settled that the constitutional Courts exercise their power of judicial review with constraint to ensure that the authorities on whom the power is entrusted under the rule of law or confided, is discharged truly, objectively, ex-peditiously for the purpose for which substantive acts/results are intended. All actions of the State or its authorities and officials must be carried out in accordance with the Constitution and within the limits set by the law. The Courts can determine not only the constitutionality of the law but also the procedural part of administrative action as a part of judicial review.
17. Prima facie, therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the power exercised by the Registering Authority in first granting letter of Authority for the district of Lohardaga and then immediately allowing the testing station to be shifted to Ranchi, is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and wholly without jurisdiction. Exercise of power in such a way by a responsible officer is highly deprecated. The Letter of Authority granted for the district of Lohardaga and subsequent order for shifting it to the district of Ranchi cannot be sustained in law.
18. As noticed above, the subsequent order passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Govt. of Jharkhand cancelling the letter of Authority so granted by the Joint Transport Commissioner is also without jurisdiction inasmuch as he is not the Registering Authority within the meaning of the Act and the Rules. Be that as it may, both the orders granting Letter of Authority by the Joint Transport Commissioner and the order canceling the letter of Authority by the Principal Secretary, Transport Department suffer from serious illegality and infirmity and also violate the principles of natural justice.
19. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order cancelling the Letter of Authority is quashed. At the same time, the letter of Authority granted to the petitioner by the Registering Authority is also quashed as being illegal, arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable. If the respondents are desirous of granting Letter of-Authority for operating testing station at Ranchi, they may proceed in accordance with law after strictly complying with all the requirements of law and grant Letter of Authority to any of the suitable candidates. Appeal allowed.