ANAND MOUDGIL Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Precisely the grouse of the petitioner, as has been raised in the petition at hand and further canvassed by Mr. Anand Moudgil, petitioner in person, who has joined the proceedings through video-conferencing, is that Secretary, State Transport Authority, Himachal Pradesh, had no competence and jurisdiction to decide the application filed by the petitioner herein for Stage Carriage Permit (Annexure P-1), rather such prayer was required to be considered and decided by the State Transport Authority, as provided under Sec. 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter, 'the Act').

(2.) While making this Court peruse provisions contained under Sec. 68 and Sec. 80 of the Act, petitioner in person vehemently argued that once it is not in dispute that State Transport Authority stands constituted and there is no time limit fixed for making an application for permit of any kind, there was no occasion, if any, for Secretary, State Transport Authority to reject the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of Stage Carriage Permit. While making this Court peruse reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2, petitioner in person further argued that there is no denial, if any, on the part of the respondents with regard to constitution of State Transport Authority, rather, attempt has been made to defeat the claim of the petitioner on the ground that application for Stage Carriage Permit was filed without there being advertisement issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh, which otherwise was not required. He further submitted that though it has been claimed on behalf of the respondents that on account of agreement entered inter se State of Himachal Pradesh and State of Uttarakhand, no new route shall be granted to a private Stage carriage operator in the interstate route or in the corridor routes, but such decision, if any, could only be taken by the State Transport Authority, but definitely not by the Secretary, State Transport Authority.

(3.) While refuting the aforesaid submission made on behalf of petitioner in person, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General while making this Court peruse reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, beside making submission with regard to non-issuance of advertisement as well as agreement inter se State of Uttarakhand and State of Himachal Pradesh, further argued that since no route ever came to be notified by the State of Himachal Pradesh in terms of Sec. 68(3)(c)(ca) of the Act, there was otherwise no occasion, if any, for State Transport Authority to consider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of Stage Carriage Permit.