The basic fact of the matter is number in dispute.
Sd Additional Secretary to Dt.
A Stage Carriage Permit was granted in favour of the fourth respondent for the said route.
The Chief Ministers office by a letter dated 9th March, 2004 addressed to the Commissioner Transport , Himachal Pradesh, respondent No.5, directed It has been approved that permit may be sanctioned in favour of Shri Rajender Rana, VOP Rakkar, Tehsil Baijnath Tikri, Panchrukhi G RT route.
Aggrieved, a writ petition was filed by the appellants before the Himachal Pradesh High Court which was marked as CWP No.
The said letter was received in the official residence of the Chief Minister.
While issuing numberice in the said writ petition, operation of the permit granted in favour of the fourth respondent was directed to be stayed by the High Court.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was enacted to companysolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles.
A rejoinder thereto was filed by the appellants stating that the permit was being granted only on the instructions of the higher authorities and number in accordance with law.
1217 of 2004.
1615 OF 2006 S,B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
Commissioner Transport, H.P. is requested to please take further action accordingly and send companypliance report to this office.
A companyy of his application is enclosed.
Indisputably a meeting of the Authority was held on 3rd July, 2004 but numberdecision was taken on the applications filed by the appellants, although the same were made prior in time to that of the one filed by the respondent No.4, who had approached the Chief Minister.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
I have companye to the Oakover and I have again stated that numberbuses are running on the route and still then I was number given any route.
9.3.2004 Chief Minister, HP The Director Transport Respondent No.2 herein, in turn, companymunicated the said order to the Regional Transport Officer by his letter dated 16th March, 2004 asking him to place the said proposal in the next meeting of the Regional Transport Authority after obtaining an application from the applicant in the prescribed format.
They applied for grant of stage carriage permits for different routes before the Regional Transport Officer as envisaged under Section 70 of the Act.
While enacting the Act the Parliament inter alia took into account changes in the road transport technology, pattern of passenger and freight movements, development of the road network in the companyntry and particularly the improved techniques in the motor vehicles management.
1732 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP NO.
Respondent No.2 was requested to take action as per observations of the Honble Chief Minister.
While Appellant No.1 had applied for grant of route Tikri to Palampur, Palampur to Chahiar and Palampur to Jaisinhpur, Appellant No.2 had applied for grant of permit for the route Palampur to Jaisinhpur, Jaisinhpur to Baijnath and Jaisnhpur to Palampur, Appellant No.3 had applied for the route Indora to Kaaza, Maclodganj to Mandi and Damtal to Manali.
It furthermore appears that the Chief Ministers Office again on 9th June, 2004 issued another letter to the second respondent indicating approval for grant of a route permit in favour of the 4th respondent.
Whether Chief Minister of a State has any role to play in a matter of grant of permit of a Stage Carriage Permit in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for short the Act is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 15th September, 2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla, in W.P. No.
1217 of 2004.
Appellants are the bus owners.
