STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. GYAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals arise out of the judgment dated 18-11-1998 passed by Hon'ble Dr. B. S. Chauhan, J. The State of Rajasthan is the appellant in all the appeals. The learned single Judge held that it is not open to the transport authority to grant and/or counter-sign the stage carriage permit on an inter-State route over and above the ceiling fixed by an inter-State agreement. The learned single Judge has followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Janta Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. S.T.A., 1994 (Suppl.) SCC 711 wherein the Supreme Court has held that agreement between two States regarding fixation of strength of such permits arrived at in compliane with Court's direction; compliance with Section 63 (3-A) and (3-B) and other relevant provisions of law for finalisation and implementation of the agreement directed to be made and in the meanwhile the concerned transport authorities were directed to re-consider their refusal to countersign the existing permits. The Supreme Court has also directed in the above matter that until the inter-State agreement is finalised as directed in the judgment and steps are taken for grant of permits in respect of vacancies existing or created under the agreement, the Transport Authorities of Union Territory of Delhi should re-consider the decision in the matter of counter signature of existing permits issued by the Transport Authorities in Uttar Pradesh and if there be any permit already granted by the Transport Authority of Delhi, the Transport Authority in Uttar Pradesh may similarly consider the question of countersignature. Further directions were also given by the Supreme Court in regard to the counter signature referred to above.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant, Shri R. P. Dave submitted that learned single Judge committed an error in placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Janta Motors Pvt. Ltd. (1984 (Supp) SCC 711) (supra). According to him, the said judgment of the Supreme Court is not a direct judgment on the question and the provisions, in consideration in whose judgments were of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Therefore, the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Janta Motors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the controversy involved and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. According to Mr. Dave, judgment in the case of Sahib Ram v. State (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1309/90) dated 28-8-1992, judgment reported in the case of Sunil Kumar Ajmera v. The Secretary, State Transport Authority (1994) 3 WLC 113 and judgment in the case of New Vijay Laxmi v. State (1996) 1 WLC 500 should be followed. In the above judgments, it has been held that the R.T.A. under sub-section (1) of Section 88 of the concerned region can grant a permit on inter-state route, provided it is counter signed by the State Transport Authority or by the Regional Transport Authority of the concerned region of another State. If the counter signatures are not obtained then automatically that grant will confine within the region of the State.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Maheshwari and Mr. Lodha appearing for the respondents placed reliance on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Ashwani Kumar v. R.T.A., AIR 1999 SC 3888. In that case it was argued that sub-section (1) of Section 88 has to be construed independently which did not prescribe the existence of a reciprocal agreement regarding the inter-State route permits. According to the learned counsel, sub-sections (5) and (6) cannot come in the way of R.T.A. of a State to grant the permit in a State which, when granted, becomes valid in the other State upon its being counter-signed. The Supreme Court negatived the above argument and held that such prescribing can be by way of the Act itself or by rules framed under it. Sub-section (5) provides that a proposal to enter into an agreement between the State to fix the number of permits which is proposed to be granted or countersigned in respect of each route or area, shall be published by each of the State Government concerned in their official gazette and in any one or more newspapers in regional language circulating in the area or route proposed to be covered by the agreement together with a notice of the date before which representation in connection therewith may be submitted and the date not being less than thirty days from the date of publication on which the Authority by which, and the time and place at which, the proposal and any representation received in connection therewith will be considered. Sub-section (6) provides that every agreement arrived at between the States shall, in so far as it relates to the grant of counter-signature of permits, be published by each of the State Governments concerned in the Official Gazette and in any one or more of the news papers in the rigional language circulating in the area or route covered by the agreement and the State Transport Autority of the State and the Regional Transport Authority concerned shall give effect to it. Considering the above argument, the Supreme Court has held as under :-