W.P. No. 12606 /2011 1.
8.2011
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The matter relates to an inter-state permit of
State Carriage covering Madhya Pradesh and Uttar
Pradesh.
The brief facts are that on the route in question,
under the earlier agreement between the aforesaid
two States, maximum three inter-state permits with six
trips were allowed to nominees of Madhya Pradesh.
Petitioner was one of the three permit holders. The
petitioner’s permit had been issued and counter-
signed by the other State for the period expiring in
the year 2010. After the said counter-signature of the
petitioner’s permit, a modification agreement took
place between two States in the year 2006 which
curtailed the number of permits and trips from three
permits to two permits and six trips to four trips.
However, the 2006 agreement also had a saving
clause that the curtailment of the number of permits
and trips would not affect the existing permit holders
whose permits had been counter-signed by the other
State. Accordingly the petitioner’s permit and trips
continued upto 2010. Before the expiry of the period
the petitioner applied for renewal of the permit. The
renewal application was rejected. In appeal, the STAT
set aside the rejection order, and directed that the
petitioner’s renewal application should be kept
pending till the recommendations for increase in the
number of inter-state permits was decided by the two
States. That question of increase of inter-state permits
on the route in question has not yet been decided by
the two States.
According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, since his application for grant of a regular
permit is pending, therefore, a temporary permit
should be issued to the petitioner under Section 87(1)
(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.
While it is true that Section 87 (1) (d) permits
grant of temporary permit pending decision on an
application for renewal of regular permit, but in our
opinion this provision cannot be utilized to grant a
temporary permit where under the existing or
prevailing conditions a regular permit cannot possibly
be granted. What cannot be done directly that cannot
be done indirectly.
On the facts of the present case under the
existing agreement of 2006 between the two States,
which has not yet been amended or modified, only two
inter-state permits on the route are permissible for
Madhya Pradesh nominees. There are already two
such existing operators having two inter-state permits.
Therefore, a 3rd regular permit cannot be granted to
the petitioner in view of the bar in the inter-State
agreement.
For the same reason, no temporary permit can
be granted in violation of the agreement. Learned
counsel placed reliance upon the saving clause in the
2006 agreement. That is also misplaced, because that
saving clause only meant that because of the
curtailment of the number of permits by the 2006
agreement, the existing permits in excess of the limit
will not be disturbed so long as the period of the
permits exists. The saving clause did not intend that
for all times to come, permit should be issued or
renewed in violation of the limit prescribed by 2006
agreement. The writ petition is misconceived and is
accordingly dismissed.
(Sushil Harkauli) (U. C. Maheshwari)
Judge Judge