M A KHAIR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a transport operator who possessed three public carrier permits in 1948 for Basti-Bahraich route which travelled via Faizabad. He possessed another permit for Basti-Tanda route which again travelled via Faizabad. Ajodhia is one of the towns through which these routes travel; a part of the route thus lies between Ajodhia and Faizabad. These permits when they were granted were not treated by the Department to be permits for inter-regional routes; they were, on the other hand, assumed to lie within one and the same region, i.e. Gorakhpur region. The necessary permit fee also was charged on that basis. After these permits expired in 1950 the Chief Inspector of Offices discovered, in the course of one of his inspections in 1951, that the above two routes were inter-regional routes as the portion of the routes between Ajodhia and Faizabad existed in the Allahabad region though the rest existed in the Gorakhpur region. According to Rule 55 of the U. P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1940, as in force in this State, a higher fee is chargeable in the case of temporary permits where a route happens to be an inter-region route. As, however, the fee realised by the Department from the petitioner was on the assumption that the above routes lay exclusively in the Gorakhpur region the amount paid by him was found to be deficient. He, therefore, reported that the balance might be recovered from the permit-holders. The transport authorities thereupon made a requisition from the petitioner who disputed his liability for any additional amount. His objection failed and so did his appeal to the Deputy Transport Commissioner which was dismissed on 14th October, 1957. The present petition was then commenced under Article 226 of the Constitution asking the order of the Deputy Transport Commissioner to be quashed and at the same time, for the grant of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 3 and 4 the former is the Regional Transport Officer (Taxation) and the latter is Deputy Transport Commissioner (Administration), to desist from realising the alleged deficiency.

(2.) There is indeed no dispute about facts which as already noticed show that the petitioner held four permits which covered the portion between Ajodhia and Faizabad also. From the papers on record this again is clear that the road between Ajodhia and Faizabad lies within Allahabad region and not Gorakhpur region. But this fact never attracted the attention of the departmental authorities at any time until it was pointed out by the Chief Inspector of Offices. Prior to his pointing out the mistake all concerned, including the petitioner and the transport authorities, took it for granted that this small portion of the routes also was a part of the Gorakhpur region. That this was so is again borne out by the circumstance that the permits granted to the petitioner were never countersigned or required to be countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of the Allahabad region.

(3.) Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for validation of permits for use outside the region in which they are granted. According to it a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of one region shall not be valid in any other region unless it has been countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of the other region. Sub-section (4) states an exception to the general rule above by which a temporary permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority of one region can be valid in another region also if the Regional Transport authority has given its concurrence either generally or for any particular occasion. This exception, however, is not attracted in the present case because the respondents do not claim, in fact they cannot do so, that any general concurrence or concurrence in respect of any particular occasion had been given by the Allahabad Regional Transport Authority in the case of permits granted by the Gorakhpur Regional Transport Authority acted on the assumption, but never on any concurrence by the Allahabad Regional Transport Authority, that the Ajodhia-Faizabad portion of the route was a route lying within their region. The provision of law applicable to the permits held by the petitioner is thus Sub-section (1) of Section 63.