T. CHUBATEMSU KICHU Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are permit holders of contract carriage, the permit having been granted by the concerned authorities of the Government of Nagaland and the petitioners have been running accordingly their vehicles as tourist taxis, the primary route of plying of these taxis is between Mokokchung and other places like Kohima, Dimapur, Tuensang in Nagaland. While the petitioners were smoothly running their taxis as contract carriage, respondent No. 2, namely, Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Mokokchung, issued a licence to the private respondent, i.e., the respondent No. 5, namely, owner of M/s. Link Transport Agency for sale of tickets of public service vehicles. Immediately, after grant of licence to respondent No. 5 as mentioned hereinbefore, the respondent No. 5 asked some of the petitioners to register themselves with the travelling agency of the respondent No. 5 and carry, in their respective taxis, only those passengers, who purchase tickets issued by the said travelling agency. The petitioners, who were so approached by the respondent No. 5, declined and continued to run their business by picking up passengers from the fixed destinations and drop them at the fixed destinations in terms of their respective permits. As the petitioners declined to accede to what the respondent No. 5 had demanded, an order was issued, on 29.9.2004, by the respondent No. 3, namely, District Transport Officer, Mokokchung, directing that, the operators of the commercial public vehicles, within Mokokchung zone, must, with immediate effect, use tickets from the authorized counters only failing which, the authorities would take appropriate action under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the MV Act, 1988'). The effect of the order, dated 29.9.2004, aforementioned was though all the tourist taxis operating in Mokokchung area had to carry only those passengers to whom the tickets were sold by the said travelling agency of the respondent No. 5. Notwithstanding the order, dated 29.9.2004, aforementioned, as the petitioners continued to run their business as in the past, the respondents/authorities concerned collectively and individually started, according to the petitioners, harassing the petitioners by detaining the vehicles of the petitioners and, at times, seizing their vehicles, and also the documents of the vehicle concerned.

(2.) IN the above backdrop, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to get set aside and quashed the order, dated 29.9.2004, aforementioned, their case being, in brief, thus : The respondent No. 2 has no authority to grant licence under Section 93 of the MV Act, 1988, to agents or canvassers for sale of tickets for travel by public service vehicles, for, the condition precedent for granting of the licence under Section 93 is that the Government must prescribe the terms and conditions subject to which such licence can be issued or obtained by the agent or canvassers. As far as the State of Nagaland is concerned, the Government has not made any Rules under the MV Act, 1988, nor has the Government prescribed any condition for grant of licence to agents or canvassers in terms of Section 93. This apart, the directions contained in the order, dated 29.9.2004, aforementioned, have been passed purportedly under Section 93 of the MV Act, 1988, though Section 93 gives no such powers to anyone and, more so, to respondent No. 3.

(3.) AS far as the respondent No. 5 is concerned, her case is, inter alia, that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the licence issued to herby the respondent No. 2, the licence was validly granted to her and as the concerned authority had granted the licence allowing the respondent No. 5 to work as an agent or canvasser for sale of tickets for travel by public service vehicles, it was not wrong, on the part of the authorities concerned, to inform everyone that they should purchase their tickets only from respondent No. 5. The impugned order, dated 29.9.2004, aforementioned has not adversely affected any of the constitutional or legal rights of the petitioners. The writ petition is wholly without merit and has no legs to stand and the same, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.