BHIM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. -
(1.) HEARD Mr. Amar Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
(2.) BOTH these writ petitions raise a common question of law and are hence being decided together by a common judgment. The petitioners
before this Court have challenged the order dated 26.6.20 10 by which the
Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun, Uttarakhand has formulated
certain routes and has directed that permit of contract carriage be given
on such routes. The principal contention of the petitioners before this
Court is that although the power vests with the Regional Transport
Authority to grant permit to contract carriages, but it can only be given
for a route already formulated for such carriages. In other words, there
must be a route first which is formulated by the State Government, and
only then the Regional Transport Authority can give permit on such a
route. The power to formulate a route vests with the State Government
under Section 68 (3) (ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (from
hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Section 68 (3) (ca) of the Act
reads as under :
"68. Transport Authorities. - (1)"¦..
(3) The State Transport Authority and every Regional Transport
Authority shall give effect to any directions issued under section 67 and
the State Transport Authority shall, subject to such directions and save
as otherwise provided by or under this Act, exercise and discharge
throughout the State the following powers and functions, namely: -
(ca) Government to formulate routes for plying stage carriages."
(3.) THE State Government in its counter affidavit has admitted that the Regional Transport Authority has indeed formulated the routes
under the powers vested with it under Section 74 (2) (i) of the Act.
Section 74 (2) (i) of the Act reads as under :
"74. Grant of contract carriage permit. - (1) "¦ (2) The
Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a contract carriage
permit, may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, attach
to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely :
(i) that the vehicles shall be used only in a specified area or
on a specified route or routes;"
There is a complete misreading of the aforesaid provision, as under the said provision the Regional Transport Authority has no power to
formulate the routes. In fact the power to formulate the routes vests
with the State Government. Annexure 2 to the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the State shows that after formulating the route, the Regional
Transport Authority had sent it to the State Government for approval.
Therefore, it is an admitted fact that the routes which are under
challenge have neither been formulated by the State Government nor have
been approved by the State Government.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.