BALASORE BUS ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are Bus and Truck Owners' Associations and some private bus and truck operators belonging to different parts of Orissa, have filed the aforesaid writ petitions raising substantially similar points of law and as such, they were heard analogously and a common judgment is passed thereon.

(2.) The issue raised for consideration of this Court in all these cases is validity of the notification dated 26-11-1998 of the Government of Orissa, Commerce and Transport Department bearing No. LC-1-16/98- 16000/T bringing amendment to Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993 which was called as "Orissa Motor Vehicles (Third Amendment) Rules, 1998. The facts in O.J.C. No. 17368 of 1998 is taken as typical of the cases which has been filed by the Ganjam Bus Owners' Association through its Secretary. As per this case, opposite party No. 1 published a notification in Orissa Gazette on 25-8-1998 in which it proposed to amend the entire fees structure relating to fees for application of grant of permit, renewal of permit, extension of permit, counter-signature of the permit and fees in respect of grant, renewal, extension, counter-signature and transfer of permit. A bare perusal of the amended Rule 48 would show that the fees for application as well as the fees for the permit of different kinds are highly exorbitant and excessive. In the pre-amendment Rules the fees for application of permit was fixed at Rs. 40.00, taking into consideration the cost of stationeries and other incidental expenses. Now, it has been enhanced to Rs. 500.00 in respect of application for a permanent stage carriage permit and Rs. 100.00 for an application for temporary permit. According to the petitioner no opportunity of being heard was afforded to it before the final publication of the impugned notification, whereby there was violation of the principle of natural justice. Moreover, the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the State Government only to frame Rules relating to the fees to be paid in respect of application for permit, duplicate permit and plates. So, the impugned notification prescribing fees for grant, renewal, counter-signature and transfer of permit is without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of the statute. The impugned notification is made only to collect revenue, which is against the tenet of the Motor Vehicles Act. A comparative study of the fees prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Rules of different States go to show that nowhere in India such exorbitant fees have been prescribed for grant of permit and application for permit, as in the impugned notification. It is the further case of the petitioner that the service rendered by the authority collecting fees may not be in an exact proportion to the fees collected, but there must be casual relationship between the fees and the service rendered. In the case at hand, no service whatsoever being rendered by the State of Orissa in respect of fees collected, the entire concept of imposition of fees is highly unreasonable. Hence, the case to quash the impugned notification.

(3.) Opposite party No. 1 in its counter- affidavit filed through Gokula Chandra Nag, Joint Commissioner, Rail Co-ordination and Joint Secretary to the Government, Commerce and Transport Department states that it is legally competent to levy fees on motor vehicles under Sections 96 and 211 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As required under Section 212 of the said Act preliminary notification No. 10595, dated 22/8/1998 was published in the Official Gazette on 25/8/1998, inviting objections and suggestions, if any, to the proposed amendment. The objections/suggestions were to be made within 15 days from the date of publication. During this period State Government received 35 objections and after considering the same, published the final notification bearing No. 16000, dated 25-11 -1998 revising both application and permit fees. Since there is no provision for personal hearing of the objections in the Motor Vehicles Act, they were not heard before revising the application and permit fees. According to opposite party No. 1, except the temporary permit fees enhanced in the year 1989, permit fees were not enhanced since 1980. Application fee for contract carriages was enhanced in the year 1990 and for other vehicles in the year 1989. There was no revision of fees of any category till the impugned notification. Moreover, in the year 1980 the fare was 4.5 paise, 5 paise and 6 paise in respect of ordinary bus, express bus and deluxe bus respectively. Since then, bus fare has been enhanced eight times on 1/7/1981, 1/1/1985, 18/10/1985, 1/11/1990, 1/11/1992,8/4/1994, 1/9/1996 and 1-10-1997. Now, the rate of fare is 22 paise, 24 paise and 32 paise in respect of ordinary bus, express bus and deluxe bus respectively. So, it cannot be said that the petitioners are over-burdened with the enhanced fees. It is the further case of opposite party No. 1 that in the mean time, three Zonal Deputy Commissioner offices have been opened in three Revenue Divisions of the State and the Additional Regional Transport Offices at Rourkela, Baragarh and Bhubaneswar have been up-graded to Regional Transport Offices. After bifurcation of the districts, one new R.T.O. office has been opened at Rayagada, one Additional R.T.O. office at Angul and one Assistant R.T.O. office at Rajgangpur. Some new check gates were also opened at State border. By opening/upgrading R.T.O. offices etc. the Transport Administration was decentralized and came closer to the vehicle owners as well as the public in general to provide better service in the matter of granting permit, issuing license and fitness certificate etc. In order to prevent fatal road accidents, steps have also been taken to educate the public in road safety programme. On these score the Government has incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs. 8.11 crores for the year 1998-99 as against Rs. 75.21 lakhs in the year 1980-81. Thus, opposite party No. 1 has been spending much more than the fees collected. Accordingly, it pressed to dismiss the writ petitions. Opposite party No. 2 did not prefer to file any counter-affidavit.