DINESHBHAI VITTHALBHAI PATEL Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice in Spl.C.A. No.6110 of 2002. Mr.Premal Joshi, learned A.G.P. waives service as both matters involve identical issue. Heard Mr.P.R.Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Premal Joshi, learned A.G.P. for the respondents. By consent of both the parties the matters are taken up for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) The petitioner is carrying on business of transporting passengers by buses from one place to another. The petitioner entered into a contract with certain schools / educational institutions for transportation of students and staff members of such educational institutions in Vadodara. In pursuance of such contract the petitioner applied for and were granted permits (Annexures-A and B), being contract-carriage permits under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act"). It appears that Respondent No.1 issued a letter on 18-06-2002 calling upon the petitioner to paint the bus in yellow colour and also paint the words "Educational Institution Bus" within the circle of 60 cms. diameter on both sides of the vehicle. This letter was issued by Respondent No.1 by relying upon Rule 124-A of the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989 ("the Rules"), under instruction of the Transport Commissioner, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad vide letter dated 29-12-2001 and decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Vadodara taken at its meeting held on 10-01-2002. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid letter by virtue of which the respondent No.1 - authority is compelling the petitioner to carry out the necessary changes by painting the bus in yellow colour and painting the words as aforesaid.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that Rule 124-A of the Rules cannot change or attach further conditions to the contract-carriage permit granted under Section 74 of the Act and that too without hearing the affected parties. It is further contended that Section 2(11) of the Act defines the phrase "educational institution bus" and if the said definition is taken into consideration it is not possible for the authority to insist that the petitioner should paint the body of the bus as directed. As against this Mr.Joshi, learned A.G.P. referred to the affidavit-in-reply and the annexures thereto in support of his submission that Rule 124-A of the Rules prescribes painting and marking of Educational Institution Bus in certain manner and the petitioner was required to follow the said Rule. It was further submitted that under Section 68 of the Act the State was empowered to constitute a State Transport Authority and a Regional Transport Authority. That the Transport Commissioner was the ex-officio Secretary of the State Transport Authority which was constituted as such under section 68 of the Act and in that capacity had issued directions on 29-12-2001 in the form of a circular letter to all Regional Transport Officers that all buses plying on contract-carriage basis with Educational Institutions should be required to abide by provision of Rule 124-A of the Rules. It was also submitted that a meeting of the Regional Transport Authority which was held on 10-01-2002 had after considering the aforesaid letter dated 29-12-2001 decided that buses plying on contract-carriage basis with Educational Institutions would become amenable to Rule 124-A of the Rules. Attention of the Court was invited to both the circular letter dated 29-12-2001 and the Minutes of Meeting dated 10-01-2002, with special reference to Item No.6 of the Agenda of the said Minutes.