N MUDDAPPA Vs. SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dt. 13-2-1997 passed by Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore reviewing and modifying the timings and their assignment. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the authority has modified the order, without complying with the requirements of provisions of law as contained in Sec. 72 (2) (XXII) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is without giving any notice, to the petitioner. He has further contended that no power of review did vest in the authority. On behalf of the respondents this submission has not been disputed that the modification or variation of timings has been done without any notice to the petitioner. A perusal of the order particularly, the later part is material also to be quoted : @@ timings MODIFIED AND ASSIGNEDBangalored. 7-10 am A. 1. 30 p. m. Nelamangalaa. 8-55 "d. 12. 15 p. m. D. 9-00 "s. Templea. 9-25 "d. 11. 15 a. m. D. 9-30 " A. 11. 10 "dodballapuraa. 10. 00 " D. 10. 30 "@@

(2.) FROM the perusal of the order, it appears that modification in the timings has been done only on the request submitted by Sri V. Basavaraju and as admitted by the parties, no notice had been issued; when the request was made for modification of the timings, to the respondents. Sec. 72 of the Act deals with the grant of Stage Carriage Permit. Sec. 72 (2) of the act reads as under :

(3.) A perusal of Section 72 (2) Cl. (XXII) per se reveals that Regional Transport Authority is empowered to vary or modify the conditions of permit which may include the time table vide the Cl. VI of Section 72 (2 ). He is also entitled to attach further conditions to the permit. It means as regards the power to vary conditions from time to time, there power vests in the Regional Transport Authority and it cannot be said that Regional Transport Authority has no power to review its order or modify the timings or the conditions of the permit nor can it be said that no further conditions can be attached to the permit. A reading of Section 72 per se reveals that such power to modify or vary the conditions of the permit vests in Regional Transport Authority and that power to vary the condition includes the power to change the timings. How this power is to be exercised, that has also been specially indicated and shown as provided in Section 72 (2) (XXII) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, that before exercising such power, Regional Transport Authoity is rquired to give a notice of not less than one month period. Giving of notice is not a mere formality. It means that notice should be given and if any party or permit holder is effected, files any objection, then his objections have also got to be considered and it is thereafter any order varying the condition of the permit or attaching any further conditions may be passed. When the law so provides, the manner for doing or exercising of this power, the intention of the legislature appears to be that power to vary condition or to attach further conditions shall not be exercised otherwise than the mode provided under Section 72 (2) (XXII ). In other words it can be said that there is now power to modify the conditions vested in the authority is not exercisable without giving due notice of a period of not less than one month. The power to vary is exercisable only after giving notice to the party affected under law and after hearing the objections. In the present case when I so observe, I find support for my view from the decision of their Lordships of Privy Council in, famous Nazir Ahamad's case in Nazir Ahamad v. King Emperor reported in Air 19 36 PC 253 (2) : (37 Cri LJ 897 ). Their Lordships of the Privy Council laid down and observed at page 257 while dealing with a question on Section 164 of Cr. P. C. observed as under :