- (1.) We have heard Shri S.N. Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. The petitioners are running school buses. By this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue permit and fitness certificate to the petitioners' vehicles fixing the age of vehicles upto 20 years old model. They have also prayed for directions to the respondents to permit them to ply their buses up to the age of 20 years.
(2.) The petitioners have relied upon some orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2106 of 2008 decided on 3.12.2008 and in Writ A. No. 44868 of 2012 (Omwati Saraswati Junior High School, Jahangirabad and others) decided on 7.12.2012, by which the Court had followed the judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46190 of 2003 (sic) (Ram Prakash and another v. State of UP and others), wherein it was held that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority shall issue permit to the petitioner after verifying the fact, that the petitioner has a vehicle which is road worthy and fit in condition. A further direction was given that he will ensure that the vehicle owned by the petitioner is of the model which is within the period of 20 years.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel informs the Court that the order in Omwati Saraswati Junior High School, Jahangirabad and others (supra) was passed in absence of benefit of a judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, which has distinguished Ram Prakash's case (sic) and had upheld the authority of State Transport Authority to fix the age of vehicles to ply on road. 4. The relevant portion of the judgment in Mahraj Uddin and others v. State of UP and others, Writ A. No. 26114 of 2011 decided on 26.5.2011, : (Reported in : 2011 (5) ALJ 70) incidentally argued by same counsel, who is appearing in the present case, is quoted as below: - - .......Obviously, the decision under challenge in (sic) Ram Prakash's case (supra) was a decision of STA prior to 15/10/2003, and the judgments relied by the petitioners counsel were on the basis of the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Petition 46190/2003 which has no relevance with regard to the subsequent decision of STA taken on 23/2/2010. If the age of the vehicle can be prescribed by the STA under the provisions of the Act, 1988, which has been answered as Yes by the Division Benches of this Court as noticed above, there is no lack of jurisdiction in the STA in fixing the age of vehicle by its resolution dated 23/2/2010. Thus, the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 10/5/2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 22378/2007 relying on the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of (sic) Ram Prakash (supra) is no longer applicable in view of the subsequent decision and resolution of the STA taken 23/2/2010. We are also of the view that treating the order of the STA to be set aside for buses/mini buses and implementing the said decision with regard to auto rickshaw/tempo shall not be appropriate. We, however are constrained to observe that the Tribunal has passed the order heavily relying on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 46190/2003 decided on 05/10/2003, in (sic) Ram Prakash (supra) which directions were relevant at the time when there was no other decision of STA. When the STA has taken a subsequent decision giving appropriate reason, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 46190/2003 decided on 05/10/2003, in (sic) Ram Prakash (supra) cannot be read too far, nor the said judgment in anyway fetters the power of the STA to fix the age of the vehicles or put any model condition in the permit. It is to be noted that in this writ petition there is no challenge to the decision of S.T.A. dated 23/2/2010, thus the reliance on the said order by the counsel for the petitioners cannot be said to be misplaced. However, as observed above, the judgment of the STA dated 23/2/2010, as circulated by circular dated 05/3/2010, having been setaside, it shall not be appropriate to rely on the same. In the circular dated 05/3/2010, the age of the vehicles as existed prior to 23/2/2010, has been mentioned in the tabular form which is part of the rejoinder affidavit as Annexure -1.;