S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by letter dated 24.11.2014 whereby, respondent -Joint Transport Commissioner, Jharkhand has declined renewal of permit No. P.St.P. -11/1990, the petitioner has sought a direction commanding upon the respondent -authority to renew the said permit.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was granted permit No. P.St.P. -11/1990, initially valid up to 11.02.1995 for the route -Madhupur to Raniganj. The said permit has been renewed from time to time and lastly, it was renewed vide order dated 21.10.2010 for period up to 11.02.2015. The petitioner submitted an application on 04.09.2014 for renewal of the said permit however, vide letter dated 24.11.2014 the renewal of the said permit has been declined and the petitioner has been directed to substitute vehicle No. JH -01AE 1005 by another vehicle.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application for renewal can be declined only in terms of Section 81(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the present case, the conditions enumerated under sub -section (4) of Section 81 is not satisfied and therefore, the impugned order dated 24.11.2014 declining renewal of licence is illegal. It is further submitted that in view of Section 72(2)(x), a further condition must be published in the official Gazette and a period of 2 years has to be provided for complying with such condition. In the present case, no condition as to the age of a vehicle has been notified and therefore, the Joint Transport Commissioner, Jharkhand was not authorised to direct the petitioner to replace the vehicle bearing No. JH -01AE 1005 by another vehicle. The learned counsel relies on decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3862 of 2005 [Giribala Jha Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.]. As against the above, Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, the learned G.P. IV appearing for the respondent -State of Jharkhand submits that the Regional Transport Authority has power to fix the age even if no rule has been framed in this respect. Relying on the decision in "Subhash Chandra and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.", : (1980) 2 SCC 324, the learned counsel submits that the safety of the commuters has also to be considered by the Regional Transport Authority while taking a decision on the application for grant of renewal of the permit. It is further submitted that the expression "description" would cover the age of a vehicle and thus, the Regional Transport Authority is empowered to fix the age of a vehicle while taking a decision for permit/renewal of a permit. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on several decisions and submits that the Regional Transport Authority is competent to prescribe conditions.;