NANAK CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In exercise of power conferred on them by Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939, ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Governments of U. P. and Haryana executed a reciprocal agreement (hereinafter referred to as the agreement) in 1968 for providing road transport service on the inter-State routes, lying between the two States. One of the inter-State routes covered by the agreement is Muzaffarnagar-Panipat-Karnal via Shyamli (hereinafter referred to as the route). Pursuant to the agreement the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut granted permanent stage carriage permits to the petitioners in 1971. These permits were counter-signed by the transport authorities of Haryana State. Both these permits and their counter-signature continued to be renewed by the transport authorities of the two States after every three years, up to 1980. Permits renewed in 1980 were valid up to 9-ll-1983. However, applications for renewal of permits of the petitioners, filed in 1983 for getting their permits renewed up to 1986, were rejected by State Transport Authority, U. P., Lucknow in 1985, against which they filed appeals before State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P., Lucknow. The Appellate Tribunal in exercise of its power under Section 134(l-A) of the Act granted interim relief permitting the petitioners to continue to operate their vehicles on the route and it is admitted that during the pendency of the appeals the permits of the petitioners continued to be counter-signed by the transport authorities of Haryana in view of the interim orders of the Appellate Tribunal. The appeals were allowed on 30-5-1989 and applications for renewal for the period from 9-11-1983 to 8-11-1986 were allowed with the result that the petitioners permits came to be renewed up to 8-11-1986. During the pendency of the appeals the petitioners made applications for renewal for further period of three years from 9-11-1986 to 8-11-1989 and thereafter from 9-ll-1989 to 8-11-1992. It is stated that these applications for renewal are still pending. The petitioners have made applications for temporary permits pending renewal, before the State Transport Authority, U. P., Lucknow, which now has the jurisdiction to grant and renew the permits of inter-State routes, which were allowed and temporary permits, for four months at a time, were granted to the petitioners, which were counter-signed by Haryana Authorities. However, after some time transport authorities of Haryana declined to countersign the temporary permits of the petitioners on account of which the petitioners filed writ petition No. 557 of 1985 before this Court. This writ petition was, however, not pressed and was accordingly dismissed as not pressed.

(2.) The petitioners filed another writ petition before High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (C.W.P. No. 4391 of 1990). This writ petition was disposed of by High Court of Chandigarh with the observations that if in the opinion of the respondents the agreement provides for counter-signing of the permits of the private operators on the route, the claim of the petitioners be considered in accordance with law. Transport authority of Haryana not having counter-signed their permits the petitioners have filed these writ petitions for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to renew and counter-sign their permits. Further prayer for restraining the respondents from interfering with the plying of their vehicles on the route has also been made.

(3.) In 1989 permanent stage carriage permits have been granted to the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) for the route against the same vacancies against which the petitioners were granted permits. It has been stated that the permits of the Corporation have been counter-signed by the transport authorities of Haryana and the Corporation is operating its vehicles on the route. The present position is that both the petitioners and the Corporation are holding permits for the route against the same vacancies and the trips which have been agreed upon in the agreement, although the permits of the petitioners have not been counter-signed by the transport authorities of Haryana, but they have been permitted to ply under the interim order of this Court.