1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : N A G P U R.
WRIT PETITION No. 815 OF 2010 With W.P. No. 864 of 2010
(1) W.P. No. 815/10
Durgashankar Ghanshyam Agrawal,
aged 40 years, Occupation : Business,
r/o Paratwada, Tq. Achalpur,
District Amravati. ... PETITIONER.
-VERSUS -
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Ministry of Surface Transport Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Commissioner for Transport,
Administrative Building No.3, 4th Floor,
Government Colony, Wandre (E)-51.
3. State Transport Authority,
Office of Commissioner for Transport,
Administrative Building No.3, 4th Floor,
Government Colony, Wandre (E)-51. ... RESPONDENTS
(2) W.P. No. 864/10
Dinesh Janraoji Bhonde,
aged 30 years,
r/o Mehrabpura, Achalpur,
District Amravati. ... PETITIONER.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:28:16 :::
2
-VERSUS -
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Ministry of Surface Transport Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Commissioner for Transport,
Administrative Building No.3, 4th Floor,
Government Colony, Wandre (E)-51. Mumbai.
3. State Transport Authority,
Office of Commissioner for Transport,
Administrative Building No.3, 4th Floor,
Government Colony, Wandre (E)-51. Mumbai ... RESPONDENTS
....
Mr. R.L. Khapre Advocate for the Petitioner in both the petitions.
Mrs. Bharti Dangre, Addl.G.P., for the Respondents in both the petitions.
....
CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 10 th AUGUST, 2010.
PRONOUNCED ON : 21.09.2010.
J U D G M E N T (Per A.B. Chaudhari, J.) :
By the present petitions, the petitioners have put to challenge
Resolution No. 45 of 2009 dated 1.12.2009 (Annexure-9) being illegal and
without jurisdiction.
2. In support of the writ petition, Mr.Khapre learned counsel for
the petitioner in both these writ petitions, argued that the decision taken by
the Commissioner for Transport and the State Transport Authority to adopt
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:28:16 :::
3
the method of lottery system in the matter of grant of permit for inter state
stage carriage permit by the aforesaid resolution is illegal, arbitrary and
contrary to the provisions of The Motor Vehicles Act. The counsel relied on
the following decisions –
(i) AIR 1974 SC 1174 – (Patiala Bus (Sirhind) Pvt. Ltd.
v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal Punjab & ors.
(ii)
AIR 1975 SC 123 – Ajantha Transport (P) Ltd. v.
A.E.A. Vairana Chettiar & anr.
(iii) AIR 1978 SC 349 – Smt. K. Kamalam v. R.
Ponnuswamy & ors.
(iv)
AIR 2003 Orissa 28 – Rajni Bala Das v. RegionalTransport Authority, Cuttack & ors.
3. Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Govt. Pleader, argued that
the said system of granting permits by lottery system was adopted by the
resolutions since large number of applicants had applied for such permits
and it became impossible for the authorities to allow every applicant
permits for inter state stage transport. No fault therefore could be found
out with the said system. She prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
also perused the relevant resolutions. We do not propose to reproduce the
submissions made by the learned counsel for rival parties in our judgment
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:28:16 :::
4
and suffice it to say that we choose to follow the Division Bench judgment
of Orissa High Court in the case of Rajni Bala Das, supra. We quote below
para 5, 6 and 7 therefrom –
” There is no dispute that the R.T.A. is a quasi
judicial functionary and is required to consider and deal
with the applications in accordance with law. It is
required to decide the lis between or amongst the
competing applicants. In considering the merits of the
applications, it has to keep in view the interest of the
public generally. Competition amongst the intending
operators is a competition for efficiency. This being the
legal position, the R.T.A. Cuttack has clearly fallen into
error in abdicating the quasi judicial power vested in it to
the facts of the outcome of lottery system. Such a
procedure adopted by it is wholly foreign to the scheme of
the Act.
It is an undisputed fact that in a lottery method,
element of chance or luck is inherrent and is within the
boundaries of gambling. Its consequences are pernicious
because by sheer luck an intending applicant whose
financial stability is in the doldrums, or whose
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:28:16 :::
5performance as a stage carriage operator is unsatisfactory
or who is in arrears in the matter of payment of tax might
come out as a successful applicant in the lottery process.
For the reasons aforesaid, we have no hesitation to
hold that the decision of the R.T.A. communicated in the
impugned notice No. 2910 dated 13.8.2002 (Annexure 1)
and the subsequent notice No. 2907 dated 13.8.2002
(Annexure 2) to consider all the applications through
lottery process” is illegal and unauthorised.”
5. We agree with the aforesaid judgment and consequently hold
that the impugned resolution is illegal. Consequently, we make the
following order.
6. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (1) and (1-
A). No order as to costs.
7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that
the temporary permit, which was granted to him, may be continued till the
regular allotment is made. However, in the circumstances of the case, we
direct that if the petitioner is otherwise entitled he shall be entitled to
renewal of the permit until regular permits are granted.
JUDGE JUDGE
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:28:16 :::