RAJENDRA PRASAD AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 27.06.2005 issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand, Ranch! whereby he has cancelled the letter of Authority granted by the Joint Transport Commissioner being the Registering Authority to the petitioner in terms of Rule 63 of the Motor Vehicles Rules.

(2.) PETITIONER 's case is that he applied for letter of Authority under the provisions of Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 63 of the M.V. Rules, 1989 for the purpose of Authorized Testing Station. It is stated by the petitioner that he possessed all the qualifications and eligibility criteria for the purposes of operating Authorized Testing Station. The Registering Authority, being the Joint Transport Commissioner, after having been satisfied with the requirements complied with by the petitioner, granted Letter of Authority to him to operate Authorized Testing Station at Lohardaga. The said Joint Transport Commissioner, being the Registering Authority, thereafter, allowed the petitioner to shift his Testing Station from Lohardaga to Ranch! in purported exercise of power under Rule 65 (d) of the said Rules. Surprisingly the petitioner learnt from the newspaper that the letter of Authority granted to several Authorized Testing Stations including that, of the petitioner, have been cancelled by the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 4, the Joint Transport Commissioner it is stated that along with the application form the petitioner submitted various documents and an enquiry was asked for from the D.T.O. Lohardaga. The D.T.O Lohardaga vide his enquiry report physically verified the site on which the authorized testing station was to be established and found the statement given by the petitioner correct and accordingly reported to respondent No. 4, advising him that the Letter of Authority can be issued to the petitioner. It is also stated that the affidavit of the petitioner was also called for under the provisions of Rule 63 for a personal hearing by respondent No. 4 and he explained fully that the petitioner possessed all the eligibility conditions as is mandatory under Rule 63 (3) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The site of the authorized Testing Station at Lohardaga which was shown to the DTO. Lohardaga belongs to the own relative of the petitioner i.e. the sister-in-law of the petitioner and accordingly the lease executed for the site was also produced before the Joint Transport Commissioner. In the counter affidavit it is also stated by respondent No. 4 that he is the Registering Authority notified under Section 213 of the M.V. Act for the purpose of Rules 63 to 72 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 read with Section 56 of the M.V. Act, 1988 and he has been given the power under Rules 63 to 72 of the CMV Rules, 1989 and that he is a Registering Authority as well as empowered to regulate and control the functioning of the Authorized Testing Station. It is also stated that respondent No. 2, Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi is not the Registering Authority and as per the Rules of 1989 only the Registering Authority i.e. respondent No. 4 has been empowered under Rule 63 to grant Letter of Authority as well as he has been given power under Rule 69 to suspend or cancel the Letter of Authority or to forfeit the security deposited by the petitioner.