- (1.) IN the case of Smt. Sheela Wanti and others reported in (1981) 3 SCC 665, their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering a challenge to the order passed by Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter to be referred as (R. T. A.) reclassifying the route and the consequent enhance ment of taxes on that basis, ruled that the concerned statutory body while discharging the duty of classifying routes under rule o of the Motor Vehicles Taxation rules, must bear in mind three basic factors, namely :- (a) The potential income which, in regard, to all the circumstances of the route it may be expected, will accrue from the employment of a public service vehicle on that route (b) The cost of maintenance of the roads, and (c) The necessity of development of the proposed route to serve the public interest Their Lordships further held that the order itself, are not the counter-affidavit filed in the case must show that the R. T. A. did have these factors in mind before reclassifying the route It was said that the question whether the R. T. A. has had regard to these factors cannot be ascertained from the averments made in the affidavit filed in the Court but from the order itself.
(2.) RELYING on the aforesaid decision learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in the present case the order passed by the R. T. A. does not indicate that the factors relevant for classifying routes prescribed under Rule 6 were present in the mind of the R. T. A. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Standing Counsel we are of the opinion that the petitioner is clearly right in his submission. Annexure CA-1 annexed to the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents is a copy of the order reclassifying the route from Grade- C to Grade B. In the last column of the order the R T. A. has given reasons for reclassifying the route The R. T. A. mentions under this column that between Jhijhki and Rasulabad the width of the road is 3 657 metre whereas the rest of the route is 3.0S metre wide. The order states that a bridge is proposed to be constructed over the river 'pandu' and that after the construction of that bridge the volume of traffic is likely to increase considerably. These reasons to our mind do not answer the requirements of law as spelled out from the Supreme Court judgment cited above as well as the decision of this court reported in 1985 U. P. Tax cases, 151 (Sardar Balbir Singh Sidhu v Taxation Officer). In both these decision it has been stressed that the order itself must indicate that the three factors specified in rule 6 were present in the mind of the R. T. A. before reclassifying the route. While the reasons disclosed by the R. T. A. in its order may be taken to be relevant for clause (c) of Rule 6, that is, necessity for development of the proposed route in public interest, it is entirely inadequate to sustain the plea that clauses (a) and (b) were also present in the mind of the R T A. R. T. A should, therefore, pass a fresh order in accordance with law keeping in view the law laid down in the decisions cited above as well as the provisions of rule 6. The order should be a detailed one so that the reasons may be examined by the appropriate authority, if there is a challenge against the decision of the R. T. A.
(3.) IN the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 28-7-79 is quashed. The R. T. A. will be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The difference between the tax, if realised from the petioner treating the route in question as B-Class route and that admissible in regard to C-Class route, shall be either refunded to the petitioner or adjusted against their future liabilities. Petition allowed.;