MANMOHAN BEDI Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants who are transporters have filed these two appeals, which are directed against the judgment dated 18th September, 2007 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court.

(2.) The writ petitions before the learned single Judge were filed by the State Transport Authority and were directed against the order dated 26.10.2006 passed by the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal. All the writ petitions were allowed. It appears that other than the present two appellants none of the transporters have challenged the main judgment.

(3.) The facts relevant for decision of the appeals are that the appellants are owners of delux buses which have been issued All India Route Permits as contract carriage. One of the stipulations of the permit was that the transporters shall comply with the conditions laid down in Rule 85 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. In case of violation of conditions of the Rules, the permit was liable to be cancelled. Respondent No.l noticed that either the appellants were not complying with the conditions of the permit or were misusing the permit and were actually using the contract carriage buses as stage carriage buses. Consequently, a notice was issued by the State Transport Authority to the appellants in the year 2003 in which it was alleged that the appellants were required to submit a list of tourist passengers as per the provisions of Rule 85(1) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and that the permit holders shall require to maintain a day-to-day log book and shall submit a return to the State Transport Authority every three months based on information such as starting and destination points of journey, with the time of departure and arrival and the names and addresses of the hirers. It was also alleged that under Rule 85(5) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 the appellant was required to issue a receipt to the hirer and the counterfoil of the same was required to be produced. Basically, the allegation was that the vehicle was not being used as contract carriage but as a stage carriage.