DINESH MEHTA Vs. STA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a passengers transport operator, files this petition to set aside the order of cancellation of permit dated 04.11.2013 passed by the State Transport Authority ( in short "STA?)- opposite party no.1, vide Annexure-7 and consequential confirmation made in appeal by the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Orissa, Cuttack dated 29.09.2014, vide Annexure-10.

(2.) The short fact of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner in accordance with provisions of Sections 60 and 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "MV Act"), applied to the State Transport Authority, Orissa, Cuttack under Section 66 read with Rule 45(1)(a) for grant of permanent permit in respect of Stage Carriage on the route Rourkela to Kutmakachar via Biramitrapur, Simdega and back. In the said application, vide Annexure-5 he has provided his address as "Quarter No. D-208, Koel Nagar, Rourkela-796014, Dist.- Sundargarh" and also specifically stated under Clause-9 that he has also got a permanent permit of other vehicle from Simdega to Rourkela in P.P. No. 03/2008.C/s. No.17G/2008 from Jharkhand State Transport Authority and such permit was for a period of five years. On consideration of such application, opposite party no.1 granted a permanent permit in respect of inter State route Rourkela to Kutmakachar via Biramitrapur, Simdega and back in respect of vehicle No. JH-07A-9311 which was valid till 29.06.2016 w.e.f. 30.06.2011 for a period of five years. While the petitioner was plying his vehicle pursuant to the permanent permit granted by opposite party no.1, opposite party no.2 raised an objection indicating the fact that the petitioner has obtained a permanent permit from Jharkhand authority vide P.P. No. 3/8 showing his address as " S.N. Ganguli Road, Ranchi, Kotwali, Dist- Ranchi, Jharkhand" but he has obtained a permanent permit from the Odisha State Transport authority showing his address as "Quarter No. D-208, Koel Nagar, Rourkela-796014, Dist.- Sundargarh". It is stated by opposite party no.2 that suppressing the material facts and misrepresenting his residence and principal place of business he has obtained permanent permit from the State of Odisha.

(3.) Mr. B.N. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that opposite party no.2 has no locus standi to raise any objection with regard to the grant of permanent permit in respect of the route in question. Therefore, the impugned order of cancellation at his behest is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law. In addition to the same, it is urged that the reasons for raising objection in respect of permanent permit granted by opposite party no.1 that the petitioner suppressed the material facts, is not correct as in the application filed under Annexure-5, under Clause-9, it was specifically indicated that the petitioner is permanent permit holder No. 3/8 in respect of very same route and the address which has been mentioned in Clause-3 being indicative of the fact that he is a resident of Rourkela, that ipso facto cannot take away the rights to carry out his business in Odisha even if the petitioner was granted the permanent permit from Jharkhand State indicating his address in the State of Jharkhand as his place of residence or place of business and being a citizen of India, he has got every right to carry out business in any State which is in conformity with his rights as enshrined under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and as such there is no such provisions under M.V. Act to put a restriction in respect of operator for grant of permanent permit on the ground of residence or principal place of business. Therefore, the order of cancellation made by opposite party no.1 and consequential confirmation made by the State Appellate Tribunal cannot sustain. Therefore, Annexure-7 and Annexure-10 are liable to be quashed.