(Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant - petitioner who requested for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent - the Commissioner of Transport, through the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Gandhinagar to counter-sign the permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur, Rajasthan. The order, as communicated by letter dated 10.4.2008, issued by the 2nd respondent and the decision of the 3rd respondent as communicated by letter dated 21.5.2008 were also challenged, the same prayer having rejected by them.
2. The learned Single Judge, while interpreting certain clauses of the agreement reached between the State of Gujarat and the State of Rajasthan, having held that the appellant is not entitled to any relief, the present appeal has been preferred.
3. As the appellant is in the business of running stage carriage for the last 50 years for the route from Dahod, which is within the State of Gujarat to Banswada, which is within the State of Rajasthan, he applied to the Transport Authority, the 2nd respondent, to countersign his permit so as to enable him to run stage carriage on the route on which he had been running the stage carriage. The 2nd respondent by his communication dated 10.4.2008 asked the appellant to obtain No Objection Certificate from the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) and from the local authority within whose jurisdiction the appellant intends to ply the stage carriage.
At that stage, the appellant moved before this Court in SCA No. 6446 of 2008 wherein this Court by order dated 22.4.2008 allowed the appellant to withdraw the writ petition with a view to approach the Court if the request made by the appellant to countersign is turned down by the authorities without any cogent reason or if the GSRTC refused to give NOC. Subsequently, it having been refused by the respondent - State Transport Corporation on 21.5.2008, the writ petition was preferred.
The learned Single Judge noticed Clauses (vi) and (vii) of the agreement reached between the State of Gujarat and the State of Rajasthan under the heading of "Stage Carriage Permits". On interpretation, the learned Judge was of the view that no stage carriage permit can be granted in favour of a private party.
4. The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant referred to Clause (ix) of the agreement reached between the two States and submitted that as the appellant had previous stage carriage permit for the route mentioned in Annexure - A to the agreement, countersigned by one of the States before coming into force of such agreement, the respondents were bound to countersign the permit.
5. Per contra, according to the counsel for the GSRTC, the name of the appellant does not figure in the list of 24 exempted operators as shown in the letter dated 11.4.2008, the appellant had not right to claim for NOC or counter-signature in the permit. The same plea has been taken by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commissioner, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation.
6. We have heard the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the appellant is in the business of running stage carriage for the last 50 years for the route from Dahod to Banswada.
7. The reciprocal transport agreement between the Government of Rajasthan and the Government of Gujarat was reached and notified by the State of Rajasthan vide its notification dated 18.9.2004. Under Clause
(vi) of the said agreement, it is stipulated that no permit for stage carriage shall be granted or countersigned other than that of State Transport Undertakings on nationalized routes or part thereof. Under Clause (vii), it was agreed that both the State Transport Undertakings can operate any route by any vehicle out of its fleet and no private bus under any scheme hired by any State Transport Undertaking shall be allowed to operate on Inter State route. However, under Clause (ix), exception was carved out with regard to previous stage carriage permit holders for the routes mentioned in Annexure - A to the agreement, which is as follows :-
"(ix) All the previous stage carriage permits, for route mentioned in Annexure
- A which are countersigned by either State, before coming in force of this agreement shall remain in force."
8. Under the agreement, there is no provision made to grant exemption to any particular operator. Therefore, the respondents cannot derive advantage of the letter dated 11.4.2008 whereby the exemption has been granted in favour of one or other operators. If the name of the appellant is not appearing there, the appellant may not get advantage of the said letter dated 11.4.2008, but he cannot be deprived of the advantage, if any, flows out of Clause (ix) of the agreement aforesaid.
9. Clauses (vi) and (vii) are prospective in nature as evident from the said provisions and quoted hereunder :-
"(vi) No permit for stage carriage shall be granted or countersigned other than that of State Transport Undertakings on nationalized routers or part thereof by the transport authorities of reciprocating States.
(vii) Both the State Transport Undertakings can operate any route by any vehicle out of its fleet. No private bus under any scheme hired, by any State Transport Undertaking shall be allowed to operate on Inter State route."
10. On the other hand, Clause (ix), as quoted above, deals with all the previous stage carriage permits, for routes mentioned in Annexure - A which were running in the said route, countersigned by either State before coming into force of the agreement and they have been permitted to remain in force.
11. In view of Clause (ix) aforesaid, if it is found that the appellant had previous stage carriage permit countersigned by either the State of Gujarat or the State of Rajasthan and is running on the routes mentioned in Annexure - A to the agreement, then in that case, the respondents could not have rejected the claim giving reference to Clauses (vi) and (vii) of the agreement. The question whether the appellant is covered by Clause (ix) of the agreement or not will have to be decided by the respondents and the learned Single Judge ought to have set aside the impugned orders and referred the matter to the respondent authorities to reconsider the case of the appellant in light of Clause (ix) of the agreement. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned orders dated 10.4.2008 and 21.5.2008 passed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents respectively and the order dated 7.8.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in SCA No. 607 of 2009 and remit the matter to the respondent authorities to reconsider the case of the appellant in light of Clause (ix) of reciprocal transport agreement notified on 18.9.2004. If the appellant is found to be holding a previous stage carriage permit for the routes mentioned in Annexure - A to the agreement and such permit is countersigned by either of the States, the respondents will pass appropriate order within two months in his favour. On the contrary, if any of the criteria the appellant could not fulfill, then the authorities may reject it and communicate the grounds to the appellant.
12. Both the appeal and the Civil Application are disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
Direct Service is permitted.
[S.J.
MUKHOPADHAYA, CJ.] [AKIL KURESHI, J.] sundar/-
Top