RAJ KUMARI Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AAPPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated January 30, 1996 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in appeal No-296/95 and also order dated December 14, 1995 passed by the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Government of N.C.T. of Delhi. The petitioner was granted Stage Carriage Permit in respect of bus No.DL-1P-2285 by the State Transport Authority. On October 21, 1995 at about 4.35 p.m. the bus of the petitioner was found to be parked diagonally alongwith another Red Line Bus and the staff of both the buses were having a scuffle with one another on the road. An FIR was lodged against the driver of the bus under Sections 160/283/504 Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Mayapuri. It appears that the driver of the petitioner was convicted and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 2 days. On November 20, 1995 the Commissioner-cum- Secretary (Transport), N.C.T. of Delhi issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') to show-cause why the permit be not suspended. Despite the fact that the petitioner received the notice, she did not choose to file a reply thereto. On November 20, 1995 the Commissioner-cum-Secretary passed the order under Section 86 of the Act suspending the Stage Carriage Permit of the petitioner for a period of three months. In the order it was observed that one of the conons under which the permit was issued required the permit holder to exercise such supervision as is necessary to ensure that the vehicle is being operated in conformity with the Motor Vehicles Rules with due regard to the safety of the passangers. He further observed that due supervision by the petitioner was lacking. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary also made a general remark to the effect that the Red Line Bus Operators constantly quarrelled with each other in a bid to over take and gather as many passagers as possible. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary was also critical of the general discipline of the persons operating the buses. The petitioner not being satisfied with the order of the Commissioner, filed an appeal before the Stale Transport Appellate Tribunal. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal on January 5, 1996 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner alongwith appeals of certain other bus operators by a common order. The petitioner has filed the instant petition questioning both the order of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary as well as the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The only contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Commissioner-cum-Secretary(Transport) N.C.T. of Delhi did not have the jurisdiction to suspend the stage carriage permit as the permit was granted by the State Transport Authority and .the State Transport Authority was only competent to cancel or suspend the same in absence of the rules under Section 96 of the Act of 1951 permitting delegation under Section 96 of the Act of 1951.

(2.) I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Chapter V of the Act deals with the control of the transport vehicles. Section 66(1) of the Act provides that no owner of the vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transpoirt vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used. It appears that the object of Section 66(1) is to control and regulate the transport vehicles on the road. Section 68(1) and (2) deal with the constitution of the State and Regional Transport Authorities. Section 68(5) empowers the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority, if authorised in this behalf by rules made under Section 96 to delegate such of its powers and functions to such authority or person subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as may be prescribed by the said rules. Under Section 86 the transport authority which granted a permit has been vested with power to cancel the permit or to suspend the same for such period as it thinks fit. Section 86 reads as under:-

(3.) Thus it is clear from sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the Act that the transport authority which granted the permit has the power to cancel or suspend the same on breach of any condition specified in Section 84 or any condition contained in the permit or on the grounds mentioned in clauses (b) to (f) thereof. A transport authority can also exercise the powers conferred on it under sub-section (1) of Section 86 in relation to permit granted by another authority or person provided the power in that behalf has been delegated under sub-section 5 of Section 68. As already noticed, the power can be delegated if authorised by the Rules made under Section 96 of the Act. Under sub-clause 5 of Section 86, the transport authority who has the power to cancel or suspend the permit under clause (a) or (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) can instead of cancelling or suspending the permit, recover from the holder of the permit such sums of money agreed upon to be paid by the latter in lieu of cancellation or suspension of the permit. Sub- section (6) authorises the appellate authority to exercise the powers as arc exercisable by the transport authority under sub-section (5). The net result of the provision of sub-section (6) is that the powers which a transport authority can exercise, can also be exercised by the appellate authority. The power to suspend or cancel the permit which is found in sub-section (1) of Section 86, also flows into sub-section (5) thereof alongwith the power to recover from the holder of the permit a sum of money agreed upon by him in lieu of the penalty of suspension or cancellation of the permit. By virtue of sub-section 6 of Section 86 such power of suspension or cancellation of the permit and power to. recover from the holder of the permit agreed sum of money in lieu of penalty of suspension or cancellation are also exercisable by the appellate authority. Since the appellate authority had the jurisdiction to suspend or cancel the permit, the dismissal of the appeal tantamounts to passing of the order of suspension of the licence by the appellate authority itself. This being so, there is no warrant in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suspension of the permit was without jurisdiction. Besides the petitioner was granted permit on the condition that on the breach of any condition contained in the permit, the same will be liable to be cancelled or suspended. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the condition of the permit was violated. Writ being discretionary remedy, the petitioner cannot be allowed to invoke the same when she has violated the condition of the permit.