SAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner has been plying one of his vehicles in the route from Sambalpur in Orissa to Raipur in Madhya Pradesh on the basis of a temporary permit granted in his favour. The petitioner applied for a second temporary permit for the aforesaid Sambalpur -Raipur route in respect of his vehicle bearing No. OIS 5100. By letter dated December 22, 1999 the Under Secretary of the State Transport Authority, Orissa informed the petitioner that the Transport Commissioner and Chairman, State Transport Authority was pleased to reject the petitioner's application for temporary permit in view of the State Government's Notification No. 15077 dated November 17, 1998. It appears that the State Government issued the above Notification dated November 17, 1998 in exercise of its powers conferred by Clause (iii) of Sub -section (1) of Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act giving the following direction both to the State Transport Authority (in short 'S.T.A.') and the Regional Transport Authorities (in short 'R.T.A.') No new temporary permit shall be issued or countersigned by the State Transport Authority or any Regional Transport Authority in respect of Stage Carriages for introduction of additional services on any inter -state route except the existing services operating in the existing inter -State routes until further direction. In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid Notification dated November 17,1998.

(2.) THE main submission as made by Mr. Rao, learned Advocate for the petitioner in support of the challenge is that under Section 67(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') the State Government cannot issue any order or direction in respect of any quasi -judicial power of the S.T.A. and the R.T.A. According to Mr. Rao, grant of temporary permit under Section 87 of the Act is a quasi -judicial power and beyond the pale of any administrative orders issued by the State Government.

(3.) IN the present case by the impugned direction the State Government has not intended to issue any guidelines or manner in which the S.T.A. or R.T.A. is to consider an application for the temporary permit. By the impugned direction the State Government has imposed a restriction on granting temporary stage -carriage permits for introduction of additional services on any inter -State route. Section 67 of the Act confers power on the State Government to issue directions to S.T.A. and R.T.A. by Notification in the Official Gazette among others regarding any matter which may appear to the State Government necessary or expedient for giving effect to any agreement entered into with the Central Government or any other State Government or the Government of any other country. The procedure to be followed before issuing any Notification under Section 67 of the Act has also been laid down under the proviso to Section 67 of the Act. By the impugned direction the State Government has not sought for regulating the manner of arriving at a decision by the S.T.A. or R.T.A. but in fact it has prohibited grant of further temporary permit in any inter -State route. Thus the question here is not interference with exercise of quasi -judicial power, but a prohibition amounting to temporary suspension of the provisions of Section 67 of the Act in respect of inter -State routes or imposition of a moratorium.