SHIV DATT MISRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions have been moved by Shiv Datt Misra against the State of U. P. under the provisions of Section 482 CrPC. In all these petitions, the prayer is for quashing different criminal proceedings started against the petitioner under Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corrruption Act. In all these petitions, Shri Ashwani Kumar, who was the Regional Transport Authority, during the relevant period, has also been impleaded as opposite party no. 2, but he has not filed any counter-affidavit to any of the petitions. The petitioner is holding the post of Regional Transport Officer in the Transport Department of the U.P. Government and during the relevant period, viz., 15-11-1971 to 31-12-1973, he was posted at Kanpur. In all the petitions, various facts and circumstances have been narrated in order to show that for certain reasons the petitioner had incurred the displeasure of certain high ups and that these prosecutions have been started against him on account of personal grudge and to take revenge. In other words, the allegation is that these prosecutions are totally unfounded and have been started only by way of revenge. It does not appear necessary to refer to those facts and circumstances on the basis of which the petitioner has drawn an inference that he had incurred the displeasure of certain higher authorities The relevant facts may, however, be stated thus.

(2.) THERE existed a route connecting Kanpur and Auraiya via Pukhrayan and Sikandara, which was a nationalised route. On 24-2 -1972, it was decided to open another route between these two towns via Akbarpur and Bihar Ghat. In a meeting held at Kanpur by the Regional Transport Authority, it was decided that ten permanent stage carriage permits would be given for this new route. Five of these permanent permits were granted to private operators and the remaining five to the U. P. Govt. Roadways. But the U. P. Government Roadways did not obtain those permits and, therefore, those five permits were also granted to private persons. In his capacity as Regional Transport Officer, the petitioner submitted a note to the Regional Transport Authority, referring to the meeting held on 24 -2-1972. In this note he said that the U.P. Government Roadways had not obtained permits. He also said in this note that some M. L. As. had approached him with an allegation that there was a pressing need for more vehicles on this route because of the marriage season and because of the general need of passengers. In this note it was suggested that if the Regional Transport Authority approved, temporary permits may be given. Along with this note a list of nine applicants was attached who had applied for temporary permits. On this note, the Regional Transport Authority wrote down his endorsement to the effect that the U.P. Government Roadways may be asked to take the five permits granted to them and if they failed to do so within one month, these five permits may also be given to private parties. THEREafter, the applicant issued temporary permits to those nine applicants and he referred to one ruling of this Court and another ruling of the Supreme Court in support of this order of issuing temporary permits under the provisions of Section 62 of the U. P. Motor Vehicles Act. Now the simple charge against the petitioner in all the cases is that he had issued these nine temporary permits in clear violation of the aforesaid Section 62 and he had, therefore, conferred benefit on some persons illegally and was, therefore, liable to be prosecuted for corruption under the aforesaid section of the Prevention of Corruption Act. I need not repeat that the contention on behalf of the applicant, however, is that he had issued these temporary permits, firstly, with the approval of his superior officer, viz., the Regional Transport Authority and, secondly, in accordance with the view expressed by this Court and the Supreme Court and that he had not contravened the provisions of Section 62 of the Act. This is in brief the case set up by each party and, to my mind, the other facts and circumstances mentioned in the petition and in the counter-affidavit and the rejoinder- affidavit are either irrelevant or unnecessary for the decision of these cases. I may point out at the very outset that in all the petitions, the facts are similar and the same point of law and fact are involved. All these petitions can, therefore, be disposed off by a common judgement.

(3.) IT is needless to say that section 62 authorises the Regional Transport AuthorITy to grant temporary permITs for a limITed period not exceeding four months for the convenience of passengers on special occasions, such as fairs and religious gatherings, or seasonal business or to meet a particular temporary need. The proviso, which has been quoted above, however, prohibITs granting of such temporary permITs, if any application for grant of a permanent permIT for that route is pending. Now the contention on behalf of the State is that applications for permanent permITs for this route were pending and inspITe of those pending applications, the petITioner issued the temporary permITs to nine persons and, therefore, he had clearly violated the aforesaid provision of law. The ruling of this Court behind which the applicant has taken shelter is reported as Turabuddin Ahmad v. Commissioner, Meerut Division, AIR 1972 All.