SARAT KUMAR PARIDA Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all the above noted writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the grievance of the petitioner is one and the same. Each of them is the owner of goods carriage vehicle and is the holder of permanent goods carriage permit in relation to his vehicle. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, all the above writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of disposal, we, therefore, simply refer to the facts in OJC No. 6526 of 2000.

(2.) THE petitioner is the owner of goods carriage vehicle bearing registration number OR -05 -4127. He is the holder of permanent goods carriage permit bearing No. 641/94 -95 which was issued by the State Transport Authority, Orissa (opposite party No. 1) with counter -signature permit granted by the State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh (Annexure -1). It was valid up to 24.3.2000. Before expiry of the primary permit, the petitioner applied for its renewal on 8.3.2000. Pending grant of renewal of primary permit, he also applied to the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Orissa on 27.3.2000 to recommend for counter -signature of the primary permit by the State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh as per the prevailing procedure. The Regional Transport Authority, Cuttack renewed the permanent permit on 30.5.2000 for a further period of five years from the date of expiry, i.e. up to 24.3.2005 (vide Annexure -4). After the primary permit was renewed by the renewal granting authority (Regional Transport Authority, Cuttack), the petitioner again applied on 8.6.2000 along with all necessary documents including the renewed permit requesting for formal recommendation for grant of counter -signature permit by the State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh. On 26.6.2000, the Under -Secretary of the State Transport Authority, Orissa, Cuttack, informed the petitioner (vide Annexure -7) that as no permit under Section 3(31) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been granted to the petitioner, no renewal under Section 81 of the Act can be considered. The petitioner assails the validity of the aforesaid decision contained in Annexure -7. We may note here that in other connected cases, the State Transport Authority has informed the concerned petitioner on different dates that under the Act it has no power/jurisdiction to renew recommendation letter as applied for. Such decisions communicated by the State Transport Authority are the subject -matter of challenge in those cases.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Transport Authorities, it has been contended that as the petitioners intend to ply their vehicles in the State of Andhra Pradesh which is not allowed in their permits, the applications made by them requesting for formal recommendation for grant of counter -signature permits by the State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh amounts to inclusion of a new area in their permits and for such variation of the conditions of the permits, they are required to apply for grant of fresh permits under Section 80(3) of the Act. In their additional counter affidavit, the Transport Authorities have stated that under Rule 41 (1)(a)(iii) of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993, the Secretary or the Chairman of the State Transport Authority are authorities to grant permits to be valid in other States. They have also power to counter -claim the permits of other States with whom the State of Orissa has reciprocal arrangement but not to grant permit to be valid in other State.