- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. The instant case relates to the grant of permits and/or counter-signatures increasing the number of trips of vehicles on inter-State routes under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called "the Act" ). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case, which are necessary to explain the controversy involved herein, are stated in brief.
(2.) PETITIONER has a permanent stage carriage permit on inter-State route, Jhansi-Mahoba via Naugaon, a route which runs to 161 Kms. , and out of which, 97 Kms. falls within the State of U. P. and 64 Kms. falls within the State of Madhya Pradesh. There is a reciprocal agreement between the States of U. P. and Madhya Pradesh under the provisions of the Act, providing the ceiling of permits on this route, that is, four trips for the operators of U. P. , and accordingly, the Transport Authority in U. P. has granted three permits. The vehicles have four single trips per day on the route in rotation. PETITIONER filed an application in 1990 for increasing one more trip so that the need of the travelling public be served meaningfully and comfortably. However, the said application could not be decided as the Transport Authority held that it could not grant any extra trip over and above the ceiling fixed by the reciprocal agreement, and kept the application of the petitioner pending. There has been an attempt to revise the said agreement. An agreement was published in the Official Gazette of the State of U. P. on 2nd April, 1992 (Annex. 1) for revising the strength. However, large number of writ petitions were filed against the said revised agreement and the same stood quashed vide judgment and order dated 27-7- 2005 in Writ Petition No. 24324 of 1994, Abdul Khaliq v. State of U. P. & Ors. , wherein, it was held that because of the changed circumstances, the said agreement had become meaningless as the petitioner in that writ petition had obtained the interim order. However, liberty was given to both the States to revise the reciprocal agreement as early as possible. The said exercise has not yet been completed. Hence this petition for issuing direction to the respondents to vary the conditions of permit by providing the extra trip on the route. Shri G. N. Verma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the representation of the petitioner is pending since 1990 and inaction on the part of the respondent authorities is arbitrary and unreasonable, and therefore, the Court should issue a direction to increase the number of trips on the route. On the contrary, Shri C. K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the petition contending that it is beyond the competence of the Court to issue direction to grant permit/counter signature or increase the number of trips of the vehicles over and above the number provided in the reciprocal agreements, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed, and unless the reciprocal agreement is revised, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
(3.) WE have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petition involves the following legal questions: (i) Whether provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 88 of the Act can be construed independent of the other sub-sections, i. e. , (5) and (6) of the said Section; (ii) Whether Section 88 (4) and the proviso appended thereto create two independent and alternative grounds/modes for the grant of counter-signature of stage carriage permits on inter- statal route; and (iii) Whether the transport authorities, i. e. , S. T. A. /r. T. A. can grant permit on an inter-State route over and above the ceiling fixed by the inter-State agreement, and if the permit is not counter-signed by the other authority, whether that permit can be termed as valid in view of the provisions of Section 88 (1) of the Act even for part of the route falling within the jurisdiction of the permit granting authority ?;