LAWS(HPH)-2013-1-26

SUBOTH SHAROTI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

Decided On January 11, 2013
Suboth Sharoti Appellant
V/S
STATE OF H.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a proprietor of National Bus Service. He has been granted stage carriage permit for the route commencing from Nagrota via Kangra-Jassur-Chaki and back to Palampur, thereafter via Nagri and halt at Nagrota Bagwan. Respondent No-4 was also issued stage carriage permit bearing route permit No. 154/R/Stg/06. The stage carriage permit issued to respondent No. 4 initially was through Pathankot to Kahanphatt via Nagrota Bagwan. The total kilometers which were covered under the stage carriage route permit issued to respondent No. 4 were 234, out of which 200 KMs were for National Highway and 34 KMs were for rural roads. Respondent No. 4 submitted an application for modification of his route permit from Pathankot to Palampur via Kangra-Nagrota Bagwan and Parour. The request of respondent No. 4 was allowed and he was allowed to ply his bus from Pathankot-Palampur via Kangra-Nagrota-Parour by the Regional Transport Authority, Dharamshala in its meeting held on 1/2.11.2011. Petitioner has also made a representation against the modification of the route permit of respondent No. 4 on 17.1.2012. Mr. Anuj Nag has vehemently argued that modification of the route permit of respondent No. 4 vide Annexure P-1 is in negation of mandatory provision of Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for brevity sake). He then contended that the Regional Transport Authority has changed the termini of the route, which is not permissible under the law. He also argued that while taking the decision to modify the route of respondent No. 4, the competent authority has not taken into consideration that it will serve the convenience of the public.

(2.) Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General and Mr. Neel Kamal Sood have argued that there is no violation of Section 80(3) of the Act while modifying the stage carriage permit of respondent No. 4.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.