AJAY KUMAR SHAOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all the aforesaid three writ petitions, on consent of the parties were heard analogously, being involving common question of law, such writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) In W.P. (C) No. 6070 of 2003 case of the petitioner is that he is a stage carriage operator within the State. The Opp. Parties 2 to 4, i.e. State Transport Authority, Orissa, Chairman, State Transport Authority, Orissa and Secretary, State Transport Authority, Orissa together with the Opp. Parties 6 & 7, i.e. the Chairman, State Transport Authority, West Bengal and Secretary, State Transport Authority, West Bengal, who are the counter-signing authorities, are illegally granting temporary stage carriage permits in breach of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') and more particularly provision in Section 88 (1) of the said Act. Petitioner's further case is that both the State Governments are deliberately not determining the routes to be opened as Inter-State routes, number of permits together with number of trips on such routes. In that context, petitioner also stated that reciprocal agreement between the State of Orissa and West Bengal, Annexure-1 was of the year 1986 and that was superseded by the agreement dated 18-11-1996, Annexure-2, but notwithstanding the said agreement after the year 1995 the State Transport Authority, Orissa without executing and taking steps for final reciprocal agreement under Section 88 (5) & (6) of the Act, is granting successive temporary permits to different operators creating unhealthy competition on such routes and that such temporary permits have been granted in utter disregard to the provision in Section 88 (7) and (8) of the Act. Petitioner has appended the list of Routes, Annexure-3 on which temporary permits are being granted with the concurrence from the neighboring State. Petitioner further stated that granting of successive temporary permits is contrary to the observations of the apex Court. In that respect, in course of argument, he relied on the case of M/s. Jagjit Bus Service (Regd.), Amritsar v. The State Transport Commissioner, Punjab and another, AIR 1987 SC 2272. Petitioner further stated that as per letter dated 26-8-1996 of the State of Orissa issued in exercise of the power under Section 67 of the Act, the Chairman State Transport Authority, Orissa was directed to not to issue temporary permit on any new Inter -State route until finalization of the reciprocal agreement. The State of West Bengal also issued similar instruction in that State. Notwithstanding such directions of both the State Governments the State Transport Authority and the Chairman of the two States have encouraged grant of temporary permit in the Inter-State routes. Accordingly petitioner prayed to issue of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/direction to the Opp. Party members i.e. both the State Governments and the State Transport Authorities and Chairmen functioning there under to not to grant any temporary permit beyond the circumstances mentioned under Section 87 of the Act.

(3.) Orissa State Transport Corporation (Opp. Party No. 8), Smt. Labanya Shee (Opp. Party No. 9) and Daljeet Singh Chowla (Opp. Party No. 10) were added as Opp. Party members on the basis of their application for intervention. It appears from the applications for intervention filed by the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation that because of the interim orders passed by this Court for not granting temporary permits to new operators for plying stage carriage in the neighboring States, Orissa State Road Transport Corporation sought for modification of that order so far as the other neighboring States and particularly the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned on the ground that because of such stay order the people of K.B.K. Districts are suffering. That aspect was taken care of by the modified order of this Court passed on 13-5-2004 and 28-2-2005 so also orders dated 20-5-2005 in Misc. Cases 3527 of 2005, 3350 of 2005 and 4631 of 2005. We may note here that substantially the grievance of the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation has been considered as per the aforesaid orders. Be that as it may so far as it relates to regulating the Inter-State Transport Services of the Stage Carriages, we consider the same on the basis of the settled position of law.