- (1.) SRI Alok Singh, Senior Ad vocate, with SRI G. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and SRI K. P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for the following reljefs:- (i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the proceedings of the meeting dated 14-5-05 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition ). (ii) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respon dent Nos. 1 and 2 to issue permanent Stage Carriage permits to petitioner on Dehradun-Doiwala route immediately. (iii) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respon dent Nos. 1 and 2 to issue temporary permit to the petitioner on the route Dehradun-Doiwala immediately till his application for permanent permit is not considered and granted. (iv) To pass such further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner applied for a permanent permit for the route Dehradun-Doiwala vide his application dated 4-8-2004, which was placed at Serial No. 7 in the agenda of the meeting dated 14-5-2005 of respondent No. 2 and it was decided in the said meeting that for the route Dehradun-Doiwala, maxi mum 15 permits would be issued and there would be 23% quota out of total 15 permits for Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe appli cants and preference would be given to un employed and further no permits would be given to a person having permit on other routes. The decision of the Regional Transport Authority has been challenged inter alia on the ground that by fixing in all total 15 per mits on Dehradun-Doiwala route, the provi sions of Section 71 (3) (a) of the Motor Ve hicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) have been grossly violated and further that the respon dent Nos. 2 and 3 have no authority to re serve permits for unemployed youths, Sched uled Caste/scheduled Tribe.
(3.) IN reply thereto, counter affidavit has been filed by the State and in paragraph No. 4 of the same, the following averments have been made:- "4. That the contents of paras 5 to 12 of the writ petition relate to the judgement pro nounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same call for no comments. However, it is submitted that under Section 71 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 there is a provision that "the State Government shall, if so di rected by the Central Government having re gard to the number of vehicles, road condi tions and other relevant matters, by notifica tion in the Official Gazette, direct a State Transport Authority and a Regional Transport Authority to limit the number of stage car riages generally or of any specified type, as may be fixed and specified in the notifica tion, operating on city routes in towns with a population of not less than five lakhs. It is submitted that in pursuance of the above mentioned Section read with Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a scheme of supplementing operation of U. P. Road Transport Corporation Bus Services in the city of Kanpur, Lucknow, Allahabad, Varansi, Gorakhpur, Bareilly, Agra, Moradabad, Meerut, Gaziabad and Dehradun within a ra dius of 20 kms. (in exceptional circumstances 25 kms.) of the city by private sector buses was framed in the erstwhile State Government of U. P. and the same was known as Model Scheme for. City Bus Services in the cities of the Uttar Pradesh. True photocopy of the Model Scheme for City Bus Services is be ing annexed herewith and marked as Annexure C. A.-2 to this affidavit.;