RANCHI MOTOR FITNESS CENTRE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.Y. Eqbal, Government Advocate and with their consent, this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) The Petitioner in this writ application has moved for quashing an order dated 7.3.1991 as well as the order dated 21.4.1994. It appears that a letter of authority was issued to the Petitioner for establishment of testing centre under Sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said authority (Annexure-1) is valid upto 13.5.1996. A notification was issued to the Petitioner to show cause regarding the charges mentioned therein. The Petitioner filed his show cause in the month of March/April, 1993. In the show cause, the Petitioner denied all the charges leveled against him. No order was passed for about one year and on 21.4.1994, the impugned order dated 21.4.1994 (Annexure-2) was issued. In the impugned order (Annexure-2), letter No. 1874 dated 20.3.1991 was taken into consideration. It is stated that the aforesaid letter dated 20.3.1991 was not circulated or served upon any person and as such the Petitioner could not know the restrictions imposed therein. However, letter No. 1561 dated 7.3.1991 has been annexed as annexure-2 to this petition which conveys the decision of the State Government to the effect that a testing centre will have no jurisdiction outside the district in which such testing centre is situated.

(3.) Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha has contended that in the letter of authority, there is no such ban or restriction as mentioned in Annxure-3. The Petitioner, it is contended, has not violated the conditions laid down in the letter of authority, inasmuch as the testing certificates were granted to different motor vehicles which were registered outside the district of Ranchi and taxes were paid there. It is also contended that the letter dated 20.3.1991, violation of which has been made one of the grounds for passing the impugned order, was never made known to tie Petitioner and as such this ground has no leg to stand. Secondly, it is submitted that the letter pf authority can be cancelled only when there is violation of Rule 69 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter preferred to as the Rules, 1989) and not otherwise. The impugned order does not contain any of the grounds as mentioned in Rule 69. Referring to Rule 73 of the Rule 1989, it has been submitted that the Petitioner has accepted application for grant sand/or renewal of fitness certificates after being satisfied that a taxation certificate has been accompanied with such an application. Mr. Sinha further contended that the question as to whether an appeal will lie against such an order of cancellation is sub-judice before this Court in CWJC No. 3035 of 1993(R). Referring to Annexure-4, the order dated 12.10.1993 passed in the aforesaid writ application, it is argued that while admitting the aforesaid writ application, interim order has been issued.