JHAMAKLAL BALMUKUND BASER Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of M.P. No. 892 of 1989 (Prasanna Vhandra Chordiya and Anr. v. The Secretary, S.T.A., M. P., Gwalior and Anr.). The points which arise for determination in both these petitions being identical despite the facts being different, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) M . P. No. 891 of 1989 is filed by the petitioners who are Ws operators plying passenger buses on the strength of permits granted to them by the Regional Transport Authority, Ujjain Region, Ujjaih. They hold permits for plying stage, carriage vehicles for the route Mandsaur -Neemuch and Neemuch -Rampura. By this petition the petitioners challenge grant of counter signatures on the temporary permit granted to respondent No. 3' by Secretary, RTA, Kota on the route Rawatbhata -Neemuch, Via Gandhi Sagar, Rampura and Manasa, which is an inter -State route within the meaning of the Second Proviso of Section 45of the Motor Vehicles Act. The total length of the route is 132 kms. out of which a major portion of this route i.e. 84 kms. is situated within the jurisdiction of the State of M. P. and the remaining portion lies in the State of Rajasthan. The route in question Rawatbhata -Neemuch is covered by the draft scheme No. 91, published under section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Apt. According to the petitioners the question of grant of temporary permit on the route in question, it being an inter -State route, is governed by the reciprocal transport agreement arrived at between the States of M. P. and Rajasthan, which is published in the Official Gazette dated 3 -4 -1975. In the said agreement, amongst 99 routes, the route Rawatbhata -Neemuch is not an agreed route. Therefore, no permit could be granted on the route which is not an agreed route in the reciprocal transport agreement. Therefore, the grant of permit and the counter signature on that permit by the Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh Transport Authorities respectively are without jurisdiction and illegal. Other points are also raised challenging the grant of temporary permit, but we do not propose to deal with those contentions in view of the fact that the duration of the temporary permit has already expired. However, the competency of the Transport Authorities to grant an inter -State temporary permit on a route not covered by a reciprocal transport agreement being a larger issue we propose to decide this issue only.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners in both these petitions Shri S. S. Agarwal strenuously argued that the reciprocal agreement between the States of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan has clearly determined the scope of the stage carriage permits to be issued by the respective States on the routes specified in the agreement. Therefore, there being a general concurrence pertaining to the scope of the route, no additional permit, even by way of issuance of temporary permit, could be granted to any of the operators in respect of any route which is not covered by the reciprocal transport agreement or in excess of the number of trips and vehicles as specified in the reciprocal agreement in respect of the routes about which there is an agreement between the two States. In support of his arguments Shri Agarwal has placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in M. P. No. 162 of 1989 (Haji Abdul Hafiz Khan v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ors.) decided on 24 -6 -1989 and a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan in Civil Writ Petition No. 447 of 1987 dated 20 -4 -1989. In M. P. No. 162 of 1989, this Court was considering the question of grant of a temporary permit on Banswada -Ratlam route. A part of the route in question was covered by Scheme No. 73 of the MPSRTC and scheme itself had carved out an exception in clause (3) of the scheme that the Rajasthan nominees could operate on the route in question in terms of the reciprocal agreement between the two States. In that case the Court found that the route being covered by a scheme no permit to a private operator could be issued except to those who are saved by the scheme itself and the operation of the route under the reciprocal agreement between the two States by the Rajasthan nominee being saved, only the number of permits allowed to operate on the route according to the reciprocal agreement could be granted in favour of the operators. The permit in question being in excess of the ceiling fixed in the reciprocal agreement, it was held, that the issuance of any permit in excess of the ceiling limit would be illegal.