SAFINA BANO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri R. N. Singh, senior advocate assisted by Shri G.K. Malviya for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Shri D. K. Agrawal appears for Smt. Neetu Sood-respondent No. 5.

(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioner holding a permanent stage carriage permit on the inter-State non-notified route : 'Jhansi-Khajuraho via Mauranipur - Navgaon - Chattarpur-Bamitha', a part of which falls in the State of U. P. and the other part in the State of Madhya Pradesh, has prayed for direction to quash the order dated 26.2.2009 passed by the Secretary, State Transport Authority, U. P. Lucknow by which he has countersigned the temporary permit of Smt. Neetu Sood-respondent No. 5. He has also prayed for directions to restrain the respondent No. 5 from plying her vehicle on the route in question on the ground that earlier the S.T.A. had refused to countersign her temporary permit, on the ground that there was no provision in the reciprocal agreement between the States under Section 88 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for grant of temporary permits. The time table provided in the temporary permit is also overlapping with the time table of the petitioner's vehicle affecting his rights, and that as per Clause 4 (iv) of the reciprocal agreement dated 21.11.2006 the time table can be fixed only on mutual agreement of the authorities.

(3.) SHRI D. K. Agrawal appearing for the respondent No. 5 submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition for the alleged violation of reciprocal agreement dated 21.11.2006. She is neither a signatory nor a party to the agreement. She did not file any objection under Section 88 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the draft proposal, and that the grant is under challenge in appeal under Section 89 (1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner and her family members have several permits on the inter-State routes and have established monopoly, which is illegal and against the provisions of law. SHRI Agrawal submits that the Clauses 3, 4, 7 and 9 of the reciprocal agreement dated 21.11.2006, provides for grant of permits to private operators. Clause 9 refers to Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act and gives unlimited powers to State Transport Authority of both the States to issue and countersign temporary permits to private operators. The general concurrence in Clause 9 gives unfettered powers to grant temporary permits. It is stated there are two vacancies of permanent permits out of 6 on the route in question, to which the petitioner has applied and that there is shortage of vehicles on the route causing hardship to the travellers. He has relied upon the open and liberalised policy for grant of stage carriage permits, which does not violate Articles 19 (1) (g) and 14 of the Constitution of India. He has also relied upon the opinions expressed in Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 443 ; Surendra Rao v. Regional Transport Authority, Gorakhpur Region, AIR 1992 All 211 : 1992 (2) AWC 849 and Mohd. Sajid Ansari v. State of U. P., 2006 (4) ALJ 640 : 2006 (2) AWC 1830 (DB), in support of his submissions.