Roshan Bux Vs. the Regional Transport Authority and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - ' it was observed--it is clearly mentioned in this application that it would take time, to get the vehicle transferred by the applicant, that is, ram swaroop and for this a clearance certificate was also to be obtained and the time was short for getting the vehicle transferred.orderjagat narayan, j.1. this is a writ petition by one roshan bux against an order of the secretary, regional transport authority, jaipur, issuing a permit in favour of chatur bhuj, respondent no. 2.2. this writ petition came up for hearing before hon'ble kan singh j. on 6-9-67. after hearing the parties and perusing the record available before him on that date he passed a detailed order. the secretary of the r.t.a. has filed an affidavit in compliance with that order.3. the petitioner is an existing operator on kishangarh-diggi via pachawar route. chatur bhuj applied for a permit on kishangarh-diggi via arain route. the petitioner filed an objection, annexure 1 (page 19) against the grant of permit to chatur bhuj on the route. the r.t.a. however granted a permit to chatur bhui in its.....

Judgment:
ORDER

Jagat Narayan, J.

1. This is a writ petition by one Roshan Bux against an order of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, issuing a permit in favour of Chatur Bhuj, respondent No. 2.

2. This writ petition came up for hearing before Hon'ble Kan Singh J. on 6-9-67. After hearing the parties and perusing the record available before him on that date he passed a detailed order. The Secretary of the R.T.A. has filed an affidavit in compliance with that order.

3. The petitioner is an existing operator on Kishangarh-Diggi via Pachawar route. Chatur Bhuj applied for a permit on Kishangarh-Diggi via Arain route. The petitioner filed an objection, Annexure 1 (page 19) against the grant of permit to Chatur Bhuj on the route. The R.T.A. however granted a permit to Chatur Bhui in its meeting dated 6th, 7th and 8th January 1966 imposing a peremptory condition that a vehicle should be employed on the route within 45 days failing which the permit shall stand revoked.

Chatur Bhu.i filed an appeal against the imposition of this condition. The Transport Appellate Tribunal extended time for employing the vehicle by its order dated 31-5-66. Under this order 30 days were granted to employ a vehicle with effect from 31-5-66. This order was also peremptory and the permit was to stand revoked under it if a vehicle was not employed by 30-6-66.

4. On 30-6-66 Chatur Bhui filed an application, Annexure D-1, (page 50). It was stated in this application that he had purchased vehicle No. RJL 5933 of 1936 model the registration certificate of which was lying surrendered in the office of the R.T.A., Jaipur. It was also stated that it would take sometime to get the registration certificate transferred in his favour. It was prayed that a permit may be issued in respect of the vehicle for the route. Annexure 6 is the registration certificate (page 62). It shows that the vehicle was transferred to Chatur Bhut on 4-8-66 with effect from 1-8-66. Further time was taken in complying with some other formalities. On 23-9-66 Chatur Bhu.i filed an application for obtaining a permit on the 'permit-obtain-form' It is in the record requisitioned from the R.T.A. On this application the Secretary, R.T.A. issued a permit to Chatur Bhui.

5. It was held in Sheo Onkar v. Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner, (Civil Writ Petn. No. 480 of 1966 decided on 6-12-1966 (Raj)) that the imposition of a peremptory condition granting time for employing a vehicle within a particular period and at the same time providing that the permit would stand revoked if a vehicle is not employed within the time is valid. On behalf of the respondent it was not disputed that the order passed in this case is valid.

6. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that compliance with the order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal was not made within the time allowed by it and the permit stood revoked. It is argued that under Rule 86 it is necessary that within the time allowed, a person to whom a permit has been granted should produce a registration certificate duly transferred in his name. Reliance is placed on a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Narainlal Badri Prasad v. Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, (Civil Writ Petn. No. 1212 of 1966, D/- 27-11-1967 (Raj) ).

7. In the above case the facts were similar to the facts of the present case. It was mentioned in the application made in that case--

'That the applicant has purchased vehicle No. RJR 2513 of 1962 model to be engaged on the route.

That it would take sometime to get the vehicle transferred and clearance certificate obtained.

Hence it is requested that time to get the vehicle transferred may kindly be allowed.'

It was observed--

'It is clearly mentioned in this application that it would take time, to get the vehicle transferred by the applicant, that is, Ram Swaroop and for this a clearance certificate was also to be obtained and the time was short for getting the vehicle transferred. This unmistakably shows that on 13-5-66, the transfer had not been sanctioned by the competent authority in favour of respondent No. 2 and that on account of some clearance certificate to be obtained the transfer could be brought about only after sometime ..... There is, therefore, no doubt whatsoever that within the time allowed by the Transport Authorities the vehicle that respondent No. 2 had alleged to have purchased for himself, could not have been put on the route, nor could any permit have been issued regarding that vehicle for its plying on the route in question. That being so, I am unable to hold that by his application dated 13-5-66 the respondent No. 2 can be said to have complied with the direction of the Regional Transport Authority, as modified by the order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal, for putting in the vehicle within the stated period.'

8. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the above judgment requires reconsideration and that all that Rule 86 requires is that the person to whom a permit has been granted should give the registration number of the vehicle so that it may be entered on the permit, I am unable to accept this contention. Rule 86 runs as follows:--

'Permit-entry of registration mark on.- (a) Save in the case of a temporary permit, if the registration mark of the vehicle is to be entered on the permit and the applicant is not at the date of application in possession of the vehicle duly registered, the applicant shall within one month of the sanction of the application by the Regional Transport Authority, or such longer period as the authority may specify, produce the certificate of registration of the vehicle before that authority in order that particulars of the registration mark may be entered in the permit.

(b) No permit shall be issued until the registration mark of the vehicle to which it relates has, if the form of permit so requires, been entered therein and in the event of any applicant failing to produce the certificate of registration within the prescribed period, the Regional Transport Authority may revoke its sanction of the application.'

9. The earlier part of Clause (a) applies where the applicant is not at the date of application 'in possession of the vehicle duly registered'. These words mean 'in possession of the vehicle duly registered in his name'. It is clear from the wordings of Rule 86 (a) that time is granted under it to enable the applicant to purchase a vehicle, to obtain possession over it and to get the registration certificate of it duly transferred in his name so that by the end of the time allowed to him he may be in a position to run the vehicle on the route on the permit granted to him. I am therefore respectfully in agreement with the decision in M/s. Narainlal Badri Prasad's case, Civil Writ Petn. No. 1212 of 1966, D/-27-11-1967 (Raj) referred to above.

10. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that substantial compliance has been made with Rule 86 inasmuch as the affidavit filed by the Secretary shows that the registration certificate was deposited with the Taxation Officer on 27-6-66 and was lying with him on 30-6-66 and the sale letter was also produced by the respondent before the Secretary on 30-6-66. In my opinion substantial compliance with Rule 86 means that the intention behind that rule should be carried. As the registration certificate of the vehicle had not been transferred in the name of the respondent by 30-6-66 it cannot be said that substantial compliance was made.

11. Lastly it was contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner has no interest to maintain the present writ petition because only two terminii of the route of the petitioner are common, with the route of the respondent, but no part of it is over-lapping. Further it is pointed out that although the petitioner appeared before the Regional Transport Authority and objected to the grant of permit to Chatur Bhuj he had not served a copy of his objections on him as required by Section 57 (4).

12. I think that the petitioner has sufficient interest to maintain this writ petition as there must be quite a few passengers travelling directly between Kishangarh-Diggi and some of them must be travelling by the route for which a permit has been granted to the respondent. It is not very material for the purpose of this case whether the petitioner sent a copy of his objections to the respondent, it is not disputed that he put In appearance before the R.T.A. and objected to a permit being granted to Chatur Bhuj. That shows that he was interested in a permit not being granted to Chatur Bhuj.

13. The learned counsel for the respondent drew my attention to the following observations made in Veerappa v. Raman & Raman Ltd., AIR 1952 SC 192:--

'An examination of the relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act does not support the view that the issue of a permit for a bus-- which falls within the definition of a 'stage carriage' -- is necessarily, dependent on the ownership of the vehicle. All that is required for obtaining a permit is possession of the bus. As ownership is not a condition precedent for the grant of permits and as a person can get a permit provided he is in possession of a vehicle which satisfies the requirements of the statute or the rules framed thereunder, we have to hold that the parties and the authorities were labouring under a misconception if they entertained a contrary view.'

14. After the above observations were made the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act were drastically altered by Act No. 100 of 1956. A perusal of Section 24 goes to show that an application for the registration of a motor vehicle can only be made by the owner of the vehicle. An owner includes the guardian of a minor who may be in possession of a motor vehicle and the person in possession of a vehicle under a hire-purchase agreement. As the registration number of the vehicle is to be entered on the permit it follows that Motor Vehicles Act now contemplates that the person who runs a bus on a route for which a permit has been granted to him should own the vehicle for which a permit in respect of a particular stage carriage has been issued.

15. In the result the writ petition is allowed and the permit issued to Chatur Bhuj respondent by the Secretary, R.T.A. Jaipur on 23-9-66 is quashed.

16. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs of this writ petition.