KHEM CHANDRA CHAURASIA Vs. D J LALITPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Singh, J. The petitioner is an operator of route known as Lalitpur-Dhaurrah-via-Masaura-Ghatwar-Pali-Bela Behat-Jakhlaun. It appears that the respondent No. 4 who is an operator of another route known as Lalitpur-Dhauri Sagar-via-Masauri-Mehroni-Madwara applied for extension of his route. Regional Transport Authority, Jhansi, it is alleged, proceeded to grant extension of the route by including a portion of Lalitpur-Pali via Ghatwar which extension, according to the petitioner, would completely overlap the route on which ha has been operating. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a suit being suit No. 289 of 1994 in the Court of Munsif, Lalitpur for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants to the suit from granting any extension by including the route Lalitpur-Pali via Ghatwar in their meeting which was scheduled to be held on 7-12-1994 or in any other adjourned meeting. An application for temporary injunction was also moved. Learned Civil Judge by his order dated 9-12-1994 restrained the defendants from granting any extension in respect of the concerned route. The order aforesaid passed by the learned Civil Judge was taken to the appellate court. Learned District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by learned Civil Judge on the ground that in view of Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant injunction.

(2.) SECTION 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides in no uncertain language that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to grant of a permit under this Act and 110 injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the duly constituted authorities under this Act with regard to the grant of a permit, shall be enteitainable by any civil Court, Sri A. D. Saunders, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, how ever, urged that variation in the conditions of any permit by inclusion of a new routes or a new area or by altering the route of routes or area covering by it is 'not tantamount' to the grant of permit' within the meaning of S. 94 of the Act. The submission, in my opinion, is untenable. The expression "grant of permit under this Act" is of wide ampltiude and includes the grant of a permit by varying the conditions of an existing permit in the manner indicate in SECTION 80 (3) of the Act which clearly provides that an application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, other than a tempo rary permit, by inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, or in the case of a stage carriage by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by the varia tion, extension of curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit.