AUGUSTO T SAUDE NOROBHA Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Respondents waive service. Heard forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioner is a holder of a permit for inter-State route. He applied for replacement of the vehicle in respect of which the permit was issued. That application came to be rejected by order dated 20.8.2001 by the Director of Transport. The petitioner herein being aggrieved by the said order, preferred an appeal which was numbered as S.T.A.T. Appeal No.4 of 2002 (new). The appeal came to be dismissed by order date 10.3.2003. The appellate Authority did not find any merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner herein.

(3.) AFTER having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, in my opinion, respondent No 2 did not correctly address himself to the issue which ought to be addressed. Section 83 merely provides that when an application is moved for replacement of a vehicle, the authority who has granted permit, may grant permit to replace any vehicle covered by the permit by any other vehicle of the same nature. In other words, the expression 'nature' must be a vehicle which is capable of being run as a stage carriage. That would not end the matter as while granting the stage carriage permit, it is open to the respondents to consider the other conditions for grant of permit, namely Sections 70 and 72. While considering the application for replacement, it will be open to the respondent No.2 to consider if the vehicle which is sought to be replaced, is otherwise unsuitable to run on the road, considering the interest of the travelling public. This will be a relevant consideration which respondent No.2 can address itself to. From the record one does not find whether this particular aspect or other aspects have been answered. Merely because the earlier permit spoke about higher number of passengers to be carried, that by itself necessarily cannot result in refusing to permit the replacement on the ground that the vehicle offered as replacement has lesser number of seats. The test really would be whether the vehicle can run as a stage carriage and while so running whether it will be without causing any inconvenience to the passengers or the travelling public. If the second respondent comes to the conclusion that it is unsuited then it is open to the respondent No. 2 to reject the application. If the second respondent comes to the conclusion otherwise the vehicle can be run then the mere fact that the capacity is less, will not be a relevant consideration. At any rate, all questions can be left open for consideration.