RATANBAI V KAMAT Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for a declaration that column 9 of Form P.Co.Sp.A prescribed under the Goa, Daman and Diu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1965 be struck down for being null and void on the ground that it is unconstitutional and at the same time prays for a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the letter dated March 17, 1988 by the Officer on Special Duty (H.Q.) Directorate of Transport, respondent No. 3 which requires the petitioner to file a list of passengers who are travel in her vehicle.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition shortly stated are that the petitioner is a partner of the firm in the name and style of West Coast Tours and Travels. The firm carries on the business of conducting tours and transportation of passengers for hire and reward. On March 15, 1988 the petitioner made an application to the Regional Transport Authority under section 63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short, the Motor Vehicles Act for the grant of a special permit for carrying passengers for hire in one for her transport vehicles from 1st April, 1988 to 2nd April, 1988. That application was made in the prescribed form which is styled as P. Co. Sp. A prescribed under the Goa, Daman and Diu Motor Vehicle Rules, 1965 for short the Rules of 1965. Along with the said application a communication was addressed on the same day to the Officer on Special Duty (respondent No. 3) who was entrusted with the duty of processing and deciding applications for special permit on behalf of the respondent No. 2 stating that the list of passengers cannot be disclosed as the tourist party which is supposed to travel under the special permit in petitioners vehicle cannot be ascertained as the tourist group will arrive in Goa from Hubli only on the date of travel from Panaji to Ambolim. It was however disclosed that Shri Sudin Sinari has engaged the vehicle. By the letter dated 17th March, 1988 the Officer on Special Duty informed the petitioner that the application cannot be considered as the petitioner has not furnished the list of passengers who were to travel by the vehicle and unless and until the list of passengers supposed to undertake the journey is furnished the request for special permit cannot be granted. This communication of respondent No. 3 that is challenged in this writ petition alongwith the unreasonable demand of list of passengers by column 9 of the prescribed form.

(3.) The learned Counsel Mr. Lotikar for the petitioner relying upon section 63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 says that the form P.Co. Sp. A and titled as application for special permit in respect of contract carriage more particularly column 9 thereof is not compatible with that section and the requirement is inconsistent. According to him it is not possible to furnish the details of passengers comprised as a tourist party who have engaged the vehicles and in any event the details of passengers who are proposed to be carried cannot be given in advance. He however relents and submitted that it is possible to furnish the list of passengers to be carried having regard to the nature of the business conducted by the petitioner being tours and travels.