Renewal Of Stage Carriage Permit Cannot Be Rejected Solely Due To Family Members' Dues: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court has said that a person cannot be held responsible for any dues owed by their family members while seeking the renewal of a permanent stage carriage permit.Justice A Abhishek Reddy said, "it is made clear that the renewal of the permit of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the sole ground that any of the family members are due some amount."The ruling was passed in the...
The Patna High Court has said that a person cannot be held responsible for any dues owed by their family members while seeking the renewal of a permanent stage carriage permit.
Justice A Abhishek Reddy said, "it is made clear that the renewal of the permit of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the sole ground that any of the family members are due some amount."
The ruling was passed in the case of Shobha Singh, who sought direction for the Magadh Regional Transport Authority in Gaya and the Joint Commissioner-Cum-Secretary of the Mangadh Regional Transport Authority in Gaya to grant and issue permanent stage carriage permits for the route from Aurangabad to Patna, Gandhi Maidan, via Aurangabad, Arwal, Pali, Bihta, and Jagdev Patha (route no. 969) for buses which are operated by the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (BSRTC).
Singh's application for permit renewal had been rejected solely on the basis that her husband owed a sum of Rs. 4,27,821/- to the department. The rejection was based on a letter dated 06.09.1991, which stated that if any family member owed dues to the department, an application for renewal cannot be considered.
However, the court noted that in a previous case, the same letter had been challenged, and it had been ruled that the order canceling permits for non-payment of taxes by other family members in respect of other vehicles could not be sustained in law. The court had quashed the order, stating that it was contrary to the Motor Vehicle Act and the applicable rules. The State counsel conceded that the order of the Single Judge has attained finality as no appeal has been filed by the department against it.
During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel, Mukesh Kumar Singh, argued that the respondents' action was in violation of the Motor Vehicle Act and the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mithilesh Garg and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
"Having regard to the above facts, this Court has to necessarily set aside the impugned order holding that the petitioner cannot be made liable for the dues, if any of any of the family members of the petitioner for renewal of the permit. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside, the official respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner afresh on its own merits without taking into consideration that any of the family members are due any amounts to the department." the bench said.
The court also clarified that its ruling will not prevent the department from taking necessary action to recover dues from the family members of the petitioner.
Case Title: Shobha Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Others Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8178 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 79
Appearance:For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s: Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi ( Aag 10 )