UMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is an illustration of the complexities of procedure and delay defeating the ends of justice.

(2.) The short facts relevant for decision are the following: The husband of the petitioner was operating a stage carriage service on Exhibit P1 regular permit which was valid till 19.09.2011. The permit was obtained in respect of stage carriage bearing No. KL 08/F 2021. The permit holder died on 22.10.2008. The death of the permit holder was intimated to the Transport Authority on 09.01.2009 as per Ext.P3 communication, as required by Sec. 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 ("the Act" for short). Thereupon, within the time stipulated by section 82 of the Act, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application for transfer of the permit to her name, accompanied by the consent of the remaining legal representatives of the permit holder. According to the petitioner, Ext.P5 application was not considered by the Transport Authority on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the heir ship certificate of the permit holder. It is stated by the petitioner that she could obtain the heir ship certificate of the permit holder only during June, 2010. Thereupon, she submitted Ext.P7 application requesting the Transport Authority to consider Ext.P5 application. The vehicle in respect of which the permit was obtained has completed 15 years during the pendency of Ext.P5 application. Consequently, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 application also for replacement of the said vehicle with vehicle bearing No. KL-08/L 3420. Exts.P5 and P8 applications were granted by the Transport Authority as per Ext.P9 order. There was, however, a rider in Ext.P9 order to the effect that the petitioner shall produce No Objection Certificate (NOC) of the financier of the vehicle sought to be substituted in the permit. While the petitioner was making earnest efforts to get NOC from the financier of the vehicle, she submitted an application on 5.9.2011 for renewal of the permit also, as the term of the permit was due to expire on 19.9.2011. It is seen that by the time, the vehicle permitted to be substituted as per Ext.P9 order namely KL-08/L 3420 has also completed 15 years. Consequently, the petitioner submitted Ext.P11 application for replacement of the said vehicle with another one. The applications for renewal as also replacement referred to above have been rejected by the Transport Authority as per Ext.P12 order. The petitioner challenged Ext.P12 order in MVAA No. 177/2015 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. In the said appeal, the petitioner sought extension of the validity of the permit by way of an interim order invoking Sec. 214(2) of the Act. The interim relief sought by the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal as per Exhibit P13 order. The petitioner challenged Ext.P13 order in WP(C) No. 25375/2015. It is seen that the petitioner could obtain temporary permits to operate service on the route twice, on the strength of Ext.P14 interim order passed by this Court in the said writ petition. While so, MVAA No. 177/2015 was dismissed by the Tribunal as per Ext.P16 judgment. Ext.P12 decision of the Transport Authority and Ext.P16 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal are under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, as also the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6, who are some among the operators of stage carriage service on the very same route.