NIRAJ KUMAR @ NIRAJ SAHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come before this Court being aggrieved by the decisions of respondent no. 2 the South Chottanagpur Regional Transport Authority, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby they have decided to keep the difference of ten minutes of big buses and five minutes for the small buses by granting permission for plying on route in question, which according to the petitioner is arbitrary and unreasonable. Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the said action as the persons like the petitioner have fundamental right to carry out the business of plying the vehicles under the permit granted by the respondent themselves which would be infringed with such an unreasonable restriction to an extent as it would amount to infringement of the fundamental right to carry on business itself. This would entail a serious loss to the petitioner because lesser number of passenger will be available for the buses for which permit has been granted by the respondent authorities. The respondents in their counter affidavit however, have come out with a stand that keeping in mind the interest of the public and bus operator, resolution has been taken by the Regional Transport Authority in the interest of the public, which are also annexed to the writ application fixing time interval (margin) between two buses plying in the same route. According to the respondents, the number of passengers moving on the routes within the State of Jharkhand are increased substantially so more than 400 petitions for obtaining permits have been filed by the bus operators. Keeping in mind the interest of passengers and bus operator, RTA has taken resolution in interest of public for keeping margin between two big buses as 10 minutes and 5 minutes for small buses. According to the respondents, number of passengers have increased from 2004 to 2012-13 and therefore, there is need of more vehicles to fulfill the need of passengers. The aforesaid decisions have been taken in view of the provisions of Section 72(2) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and as such, the respondents seek to justify their action and also submit that this does not amount to violation of the provisions of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, the grievances of the petitioner appears to be misconceived since the respondent authorities have placed only reasonable restriction in exercise of statutory power/law while limiting time interval between two buses of big and small nature 10 minutes and 5 minutes respectively keeping into account the increase in the number of passengers over the passage of time and also to ensure that more and more bus owners are interested to get permission for plying their buses on these routes and there may be no monopoly of the bus owners on the route in question. This action of the respondent, in furtherance of the public interest, has been taken under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and therefore, restriction said to be imposed are not unreasonable in nature so as to cause substantial infringement upon the fundamental right of the petitioner to carry out any trade or business. They are infact justified in order to fulfill public interest. Therefore, the wit petition does not deserve any interference and no grounds are made out for passing any directions in the instant case. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. I.A. No. 1046 of 2013 and I.A. No. 1292 of 2013 also stand disposed of.