NAGAON JILA BUS PARIBAHAN SANTHA AND 2 ORS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
LAWS(GAU)-2018-9-140
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on September 27,2018

Nagaon Jila Bus Paribahan Santha And 2 Ors Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM And ANR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. S Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. J Roy, learned counsel for the respondent, Assam State Transport Corporation (for short, ASTC) and Mr. Y Dolloi, learned Standing counsel for the Transport Department of the Government of Assam.
(2.) The petitioner, which is an association of different bus operators is aggrieved by the communication dated 20.11.2017 of the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Transport Department addressed to the Managing Director of ASTC by which it was informed that the Government had agreed to the proposal for grant of Letter of Authority to the ASTC for a period of 5(five) years under Rule 63 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 for operating authorized testing stations for issuing certificate of fitness of transport vehicles under Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988. Subsequent to such communication, another Notification dated 11.01.2018 was issued under the signature of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Transport Department by which it was provided that the Governor of Assam is pleased to accord approval to the ASTC for opening of fitness test centers of commercial vehicle/any other vehicle under Rule 63 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (for short, Rules of 1989) and Section 56 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, the Act of 1988). By the said Notification, it was also provided that the ASTC will charge Rs. Rs.300/- for light motor vehicles and Rs.500 for heavy vehicles.
(3.) The communication of 20.11.2017 and the notification dated 11.01.2018 have been assailed in this writ petition on the ground that the same were issued in deviation of the prescribed procedure to be followed under Rule 63 of the Rules of 1989 and further that the communication and the notification were issued by an authority, who is not the prescribed authority under the said Rule.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.