Decided on December 14,2012

BHIM SINGH Appellant


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)"¦.. (2) "¦.. (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: - (a) "¦ (b)"¦ (c) "¦ (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.;

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