LexPANCHAM CHAND AND OTHERS versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 888 A PANCHAM CHAND AND OTHERS ~ v. ,,. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 1732 of 2008) B MARCH 4, 2008 [S.B.SINHA AND V.S.SIRPURKAR, JJ.] ' ,.. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- ss.2(41), 2(47), 70 and 72 - • Stage Carriage Permit - Grant of - Application for permit filed c directly before Chief Minister - Permit granted under the direction of Chief Minister - Correctness of - Held: Chief Minister or any authority, other than statutory authority could not have entertained application for grant of permit nor usurp the function of Regional Transport Authority - Also, Director D Transport erred in forwarding the same to Regional Transport Officer with recommendations of Chief Minister - Such interference violates the constitutional scheme - It interferes 1 r with the independent functioning of quasi judicial authority - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 162. E Appellant-bus owners applied for grant of stage carriage permits for different routes before the Regional Transport Officer. Respondent no. 4 owner of fleet of buses had political connection. He applied for the route permit directly to the Chief Minister. The Office of Chief Minister communicated the order indicating approval for grant of "' F I.. a route permit in favour of respondent no. 4 to respondent no. 2-Director Transport twice. Respondent no. 2 acted • thereupon. It advised the Regional Transport Authority to proceed after obtaining a proper application from G respondent no.4 in that behalf. Thereafter, stage carriage permit was granted in favour of respondent no.4 for the route. However, the appellants were not granted the permit though they applied prior to respondent no.4. Aggreived, appellants filed writ petition which were dismissed. Hence ,.. the present appeal. H 888 PANCHAM CHAND AND OTHERS v. STATE OF 889 HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS ~ The question which arose for consideration in this A ~ appeal was whether the application for grant of permit of a Stage Carriage Permit in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 could be filed before Chief Minister or any other Authority other than those specified under the Act. B " ' Allowing the appeal, the Court .. HELD: 1.1 Regional Transport Authority being a statutory body is bound to act strictly in terms of the provisions thereof. It cannot act in derogation of the c powers conferred upon it. While acting as a statutory authority it must.act having regard to the procedures laid down in the Act. It cannot bye-pass or ignore the same. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the Chief Minister in his capacity even as a Member of the Cabinet D was authorized to deal with the matter of transport in his ~ official capacity, he had even otherwise absolutely no business to interfere with the functioning of the Regional Transport Authority. [Para 18) [896-G; 897-A, BJ 1.2 The facts goes to show that prior thereto no E proper application was filed before the Regional Transport Authority. Such an interference on the part of any authority upon whom the Act does not confer any jurisdiction, is ' wholly unwarranted in law. It violates the constitutional .) scheme. It interferes with the independent functioning of F a quasi judicial authority. A permit, if granted, confers a ~ valuable right. An applicant must earn the same. Therefore, the application of the respondent No.4, was to be entertained alongwith other similarly situated persons. [Para 19) [897-C, D, F] G 1.3 In the matter of grant of permit to individual applicant, the State has no say. Therefore, the Chief ·J., Minister or any authority, other than the statutory authority could not entertain an application for grant of permit nor could issue any order thereupon. Even any authority H 890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. A under the Act, including the appellate authority cannot issue any direction, except when the matter comes up before it under the statute. (Para 20) [897-G; 898-A] 1.4 It is not a case where the statutory authority was hearing a grievance from the public that buses are not 8 plying in a particular route as a result whereof the villagers were suffering. [Para 23] (899-B] .. ' .. 1.5 The political connection of respondent no. 4 • encouraged him to file an application for grant of permit c before the Chief Minister directly. The Chief Minister could not have entertained the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.