LexVISHNU DUTT AND ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
VISHNU DUTT AND ORS. A v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. DECEMBER 15, 2005 (ASHOK BHAN AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] B Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 88: Inter-State stage carriage permits-Grant of-Under reciprocal transport agreement between States of Rajasthan and Haryana-To buses C belonging to State of Rajasthan-Ceiling of 13 permits fixed-All permits granted to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation(RSRTC)-Permits not counter-signed by the "other State" (State qf Haryana) as required under the agreement-Validity of-Held, invalid-Hence to be ignored-Permits subsequently issued in favour of private operators (respondents) countersigned D by State of Haryana-Hence valid irrespective of the stipulation therein that they were in excess of ceiling fixed under the agreement-Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 136. Inter-State stage carriage permits-Grant of-State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) remitted matter to Regional Transport Authority (RTA) for E reconsidering applications of private operators-Writ petitions thereagainst- High Court passed interim order staying further proceedings before RTA- But RTA granted permits to Appellants-private operators being purportedly unaware qf the interim order-Validity of-Held, invalid-Even if RTA was not made aware of the interim order, since order of STAT remitting the matter F to RTA was finally quashed by High Court in the writ petitions, all consequential actions must be held illegal-Code ofCivif Procedure, 1908- 0rder XL/, Rule 5. Reciprocal Transport agreement entered between the States ofRajasthan and Haryana in the year 1968 stipulated grant of inter-State stage carriage G permits to buses belonging to the State of Rajasthan. Ceiling of 13 permits was fixed under the agreement. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) was granted all the permits, but without counter-signature by State ofHaryana as required under the agreement. Subsequently, additional permits 773 H 774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A were granted to private operators including Respondents with a stipulation that they were beyond the ceiling fixed under the agreement. But after a fresh agreement was entered into between the two States in 1997, the Transport Authority (RTA) declined to grant permits to any private party. On appea~ the Tribunal (STAT) directed RT A to reconsider applications B of private parties. Against that order, RSRTC and another aggrieved party filed writ petitions, whereupon an interim order was passed by High Court staying further proceedings before RT A. But RT A granted permits to the Appellants, being purportedly unaware of the interim order. Legality of the order passed by RT A was challenged. High Court vacated the interim order C and finally disposed of the writ petitions directing STAT to re-examine the whole issue and determine the 13 permit-holders having valid permits. ST AT holding grant of permits to RSRTC, Respondents and Appellants to be all illegal, remanded the matter to RT A for reconsideratio.n of earlier applications. Against that order, RSRTC filed writ petition which was dismissed. Appellants and Respondents too filed writ petitions. High Court by a common order D dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants but allowed the petitions filed by the Respondents. Questions pertaining to validity of the permits granted to RSRTC, the Respondents and the Appellants arose for consideration in the present appeals. E Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The orders of t:-ie High Court are legal, valid, proper and do not deserve interference by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. [789-B, CJ F 2. Under the 1968 Agreement, 13 permits were granted in favour of RSRTC, but as has-been rightly held by the High Court, those permits could not be termed valid permits inasmuch as they were not countersigned by the State ofHaryana. Since 13 inter-State permits could be granted under 1968 Agreement, the High Court.was justified in taking into account permits G granted in favour of respondents which were countersigned by the State of. Haryana. The High Court was right in observing that the fact that in those permits, it was stated that they were in excess of quota under 1968 Agreement, was of no consequence since those permits were not in excess of quota if invalid permits issued in favour of RSRTC were to be excluded and ignored. It is settled law that inter-State
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.