Babu Lal vs State Transport Appellate … on 20 November, 1996

0
70
Rajasthan High Court
Babu Lal vs State Transport Appellate … on 20 November, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997 (1) WLC 703, 1996 (2) WLN 539
Author: P Naolekar
Bench: P Naolekar

JUDGMENT

P.P. Naolekar, J.

1. The petitioner is a holder of one All-India permit in respect of bus No. RJ-19/P-0771 valid upto 30.4.1997. On 30.11.92, the petitioner submitted an application for cancellation of the permit on surrender in the office of the State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, Jaipur. At the time of making of the said application the petitioner was not possessed of Part-A and Part -B of the permit and, therefore, he has not submitted that along with the application. The petitioner’s application for cancellation of the permit on surrender was rejected on 27.01.93 by the second-respondent on the ground that the petitioner’s application was not accompanied with Part-A and Part-B of the permit. Against the rejection of the application, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the /State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. The appellate authority upheld the order of the State Transport Authority which, in its view, was in accordance with law. The petitioner has challenged these orders in this writ petition.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that on true construction of Sub-rule (1) and Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5.35 of the Rules of 1990 the petitioner was not required to submit Part-1 and Part-B of the permit alongwith the application, or even subsequently before the authority for him to exercise the power of cancellation of the permit on surrender. On the other hand, it is contended by counsel for the respondents that it was a condition precedent of submission of the Part-A and Part-B of the permit alongwith the application for cancellation of the permit and the respondents have rightly passed the order rejecting the application of the petitioner as the same was not accompanied with Part-A and Part-B of the permit.

3. To appreciate the arguments, it would be appropriate to quote Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 5.35 of the Rules of 1990 which read as under:

(1) The holder of a permit may at any time surrender the permit to the Regional Transport Authority by which it was granted and the Regional Transport Authority shall forthwith cancel any permit so surrendered.

(2) When a Regional Transport Authority suspends or cancels any permit:

(i) the holder shall surrender Parts A and B of the permit within seven days of receipt of a demand in writing by the Regional Transport Authority, and

(ii) the authority suspending or cancelling the permit shall send intimation to any Authority by which the permit has been countersigned and to any Authority to whose area the validity has been extended under Rule 5.13 which effect at the time of suspension or cancellation.

On true reading of Sub-rules (1) and (2), it is apparent that it is not necessary to submit Parts A and B of the permit along with the application and the holder of a permit may move application for cancellation of the permit on surrender without the same. However, on the application having been made, the authority shall issue demand in writing asking the holder of the permit to surrender Parts-A and B within seven days. If parts A and B of the permit are submitted as required under the demand, the authority shall pass appropriate order cancelling the permit on surrender and, thereafter, necessary information shall be given to the authority who counter-signed the permit and the authority to whose area the validity has been extended under Rule 5.13 of the cancellation of permit. The application for cancellation of permit on surrender cannot be rejected unless and until the holder of the permit has been given opportunity to surrender parts A and B of the permit by demand in writing.

4. In the present case, the application for cancellation of the permit on surrender was dismissed simply on the ground that Parts A and B of the permit were not accompanying the same, without there having been issued any demand in writing by the authority.

5. In view of the foregoing discussion, the orders Annex.2 and 3 dated 27.01.93 and 21.09.93 respectively are quashed. Respondent No. 2 may take steps under Clause (1) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5.35 of the Rules of 1990 by issuing demand in writing to the petitioner to surrender Parts A and B of the permit, and, thereafter, pass appropriate order. The writ petition stands disposed of with the said direction.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *