KASHMIR SINGH Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.

(2.) Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking quashing of the order dated 16.5.2001, passed by the Commissioner (Transport) STA, by which the special permit in respect of Bus No.DL-IP-A-3291, issued in favour of respondent No.3, Jagbir Singh was cancelled. Petitioner also seeks direction for making the said order available to him.

(3.) The facts, as set out by the petitioner, are as under:- (i) Petitioner in the month of September, 1999 entered into an agreement with respondent No.3, Mr.Jagbir Singh, the original holder of permit No.STA/EX DTC/0073/93 in respect of Bus No ,DL-IP-A-3291 . Petitioner purchased the vehicle as well as the permit from respondent No.3. It is the petitioner's case that total consideration of Rs.7,67,000/-, which included an amount of Rs.2,67,000/-, for permit was paid. Petitioner states that respondent No.3 turned dishonest and did not take steps for seeking transfer of the permit in favour of the petitioner. Disputes arose between the petitioner and respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 commenced causing obstruction in running and plying of the bus by the petitioner. Respondent No.3 also started complaining to the concerned authorities. In these circumstances, petitioner was led to file a civil suit bearing No.728/2000 for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction to seek a restraint on the respondent No.3 from interfering with plying of the vehicle. The (3) Interim order, restraining respondent No.3 from dispossessing the petitioner of the bus was passed. In the said suit, STA had also been impleaded as a party. A declaration had also been sought by the petitioner that he was the rightful owner of the bus and permit. It appears that on the complaint of respondent No.3, bus was challaned and impounded also and they were proceeded against before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Petitioner had got the vehicle released. Petitioner claims to have also made a booking for conversion to CNG. Petitioner also complained that he kept on paying DTC stands and other charges to respondent No.3, who failed to deposit the same with the authorities. (ii) Petitioner also filed another civil suit, seeking an injunction against the STA from revoking special permit in respect of the bus. Respondent/STA filed reply in the said proceedings, stating that proceedings under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act have already been initiated against respondent No.3 i.e. the original permit holder. In fact, it is the petitioner's own case that respondent No.3 failed to take any steps for transfer of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner under Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. No application or record of any communication, showing that petitioner applied under Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been produced before the Court.