BASUDEO TIWARY Vs. BAGUN SUMBRUI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that the order incorporated in annexure 3/a be quashed by a writ of certiorari. This order had been passed by the Minister of Transport, Bihar on the 14th May, 1970, acting under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (Bihar Amendment).

(2.) The relevant facts stated in the application are as follows: The petitioner holds a stage carriage permit for the route Arrah-Buxar, valid up to the 31st May, 1971. Respondent No. 2 to the writ application is said to have a stage carriage permit for the route Piro-Behea, and during the currency of his permit, he applied for extension of the route from Behea to Buxar. It is said that the route Piro-Behea is of 18 miles and the extension prayed from Behea to Buxar was for an extra 32 miles. It is stated that the petitioner and others, who were going to be affected by the extension prayed for, filed objections and on hearing the parties, the extension prayed for was refused by the South Bihar Regional Transport Authority. Patna, on the 15th September, 1969. A copy of this order has been incorporated as annexure 1. Respondent No. 2, thereafter, moved the State Transport Authority, and ultimately, an order adverse to respondent No. 2 was passed a copy of which has been incorporated in Annexure 2. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 64-A of the Act, and on a consideration of the matter, the impugned order was passed by the Minister of Transport, granting the extension prayed for. The Minister of Transport has held that need of the public requires this extension, so that a direct link from Piro to Buxar will be established, as had been recommended by the District Magistrate of Shahabad. The view of the Minister of Transport appears to have been that there was heavy passenger traffic on this route between Behea and Buxar and the existing buses go overcrowded and, therefore, to relieve the traffic congestion, this extension ought to be granted to the present respondent No. 2.

(3.) The main point argued by learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the very jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport to pass the order in question is based on Section 48(3) (xxi) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is contended that power to grant extension of an existing permit is limited to 24 kilometres only, as mentioned in the proviso under Clause (xxi) of Section 48(3) of the Act, in order to appreciate the contention raised in this case, Section 48(3) (xxi) of the Motor Vehicles Act is quoted below. Section 48(3)-- "The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a service of stage carriages of a specified description or for one or more particular stage carriages and may subject to any rules that may be made under this Act attach to the permit any or more of the following conditions, namely:-- (xxi) that the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not less than one month,-- (a) vary the conditions of the permit; (b) attach to the permit further conditions: Provided that the conditions specified in pursuance of Clause (1) shall not be varied so as to alter the distance covered by the original route by more than 24 kilometres, and any variation within such limits shall be made only after the Regional Transport Authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the public convenience and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or any part thereof;" According to learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the Minister of Transport acted beyond the permissible limit mentioned in the proviso, quoted above, by granting an extension of 32 miles over and above the original route from Piro to Behea, which covered 18 miles. According to learned counsel for respondent No 2, this provision of law is not attracted at all on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, inasmuch as the condition mentioned in Clause (xxi) of Sub-section (3) of Section 48 was not attached to the permit of this respondent, which is current. For this purpose, the original permit of respondent No, 2 has been brought and has been shown to the court. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the view that the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner are not valid, based as they are on the proviso quoted above. The proviso under consideration had been brought in force by Central Act No. 56 of 1969 on the 2nd March, 1970 and Clause (i) had also come into operation by that amendment. This clause reads as follows: "(i) that the vehicle or vehicles shall be used only in a specified area, or on a specified route or routes;" It appears that the proviso to Clause (xxi) was incorporated because of the provision of Clause (i). In the instant case under consideration, the permit to respondent No. 2 had been granted before 1970 and, therefore, no occasion had arisen to attach to that permit any condition envisaged by Clause (i) of Sub-section (3) of Section 48 and in fact, no condition envisaged by this clause was attached, as is clear from the permit. Therefore, in the instant case, the proviso to Clause (xxi) is also not attracted. The question that now arises is as to the validity or otherwise of the extension granted from Behea to Buxar, apart from the consideration of the proviso to Clause (xxi). According to learned counsel for the petitioner, if Clause (i) of Section 48(3) and Clause (xxi) of the same sub-section are not relevant, then there was no question of any extension of the current permit from Behea to Buxar. According to the learned counsel, the question of exercise of power to extend a particular route can only arise if a condition as to the route has been incorporated in the permit and not otherwise. In my opinion, this contention is also not borne out by law. Under Rule 68 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, upon an application made by the holder of a permit the Regional Transport Authority may, at any time, in its discretion, vary the permit, subject to the provisions of the sub-rules under that Rule. Rule 68 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules reads thus:--