BALDEO CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction prohibiting and restraining the respondent No.2 (The Darbhanga Regional Transport Authority) (hereinafter referred to as D.R.T.A.) from illegally assuming jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authorities and arbitrarily issuing temporary/ permanent permits on inter-regional Route without determining the number of services on the inter-regional Routes by agreement of the Regional Transport Authorities concerned. The writ petitioner has also prayed for prohibiting the respondent No.2 (D.R.T.A.) from issuing any temporary / permanent permits on inter-regional Routes in contravention of the Schemes approved under section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which, according to the petitioner, had the force of law. The writ petitioner, in his reply to the counter-affidavit (filed on behalf of the respondents) also prayed for quashing the resolution dated 16-11-1983 and has prayed that this resolution be declared as void and non est. This resolution dated 16-11-83 was passed after issuance of notice to the respondents by this Court on 11-10-83 to show cause as to why the writ petition should not be admitted. This meeting, according to the petitioner, was held for granting the permits which were already under challenge in the main writ application. According to the petitioner, his counsel appeared on 16-11-83 before the respondent No.2 and objected to the grant of Inter-regional permits which were already under challenge in the writ petition and had submitted that the respondent No. 2 (D.R.T.A.) had no jurisdiction to grant permits in the absence of agreement for the grant of permanent permits and in absence of concurrence for the grant of temporary permits on the inter-regional Routes; more so, in violation of the Scheme approved under section 68D of the Act. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.2 (D.R.T.A.) proceeded with the meeting on 16-11-83 and granted the permits mala fide, in spite of the objection raised by the petitioner and also for extraneous reasons.

(2.) According to the petitioner, even though in the meeting dated 14-9-83 the number of proposed vacancies on the routes Kusheshwar Asthan to Muzaffarpur, Madhawapur to Muzaffarpur and Harlakhi to Muzaffarpur was only 5 being in items No.3, 7 and 8 and for which number the agreement was sought for from the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority which was not accorded, yet in the meeting dated 16-11-1983, according to the petitioner, the respondent granted 7 permits on the route Kusheshwar Asthan to Muzaffarpur, 9 permits on the route Madhawapur to Muzaffarpur and 6 permits on the route Harlakhi to Muzaffarpur even more than what was proposed in the meeting dated 14-9-1983 for agreement from North Bihar Regional Transport Authority. The respondent No.2 on 16-11-1983 also granted permits for Inter-regional Routes to 6 persons though their applications were received without any advertisement The respondent No.2 also extended 5 permits making them Inter-regional permits without any consent and concurrence of the other Authorities which, according to the petitioner, amounted to granting fresh permanent permits on Inter-regional Routes. According to the petitioner, on 16-11-1983, a supplementary agenda was further introduced for the grant of temporary permits on 16 routes out of which 11 routes were Inter-regional Routes and permits for those routes were also granted without any concurrence or consent of the other Regional Transport Authorities(a copy of the agenda dated 16-11-1983 is marked Annexure-14 to the writ petition),

(3.) Thus, according to the petitioner, by resolution dated 16-11-1983, 51 persons were ordered to be granted permanent permits and 11 temporary permits on different Inter-regional Routes. This resolution was passed during the pendency of the writ application in this Court and the petitioner, as already stated above, has also prayed for quashing this resolution and has prayed for declaring the same as void and non est.