Chief Minister lacks authority to grant Stage Carriage Permits; Court deems political influence illegal.

The Supreme Court held that the Chief Minister has no authority in granting Stage Carriage Permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the adherence to statutory provisions. The Court found the permit granted to the fourth respondent, influenced by political connections, to be illegal and in violation of the Act. Additionally, the Court criticized the Regional Transport Authority for not following proper procedures and directed them to consider the appellants' applications independently. The appeal was allowed, the Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment was set aside, and a cost of Rupees one lakh was imposed on the State for payment to the National Legal Services Authority.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Role of the Chief Minister in granting Stage Carriage Permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. Legality of the permit granted to the fourth respondent.
3. Procedural adherence by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Role of the Chief Minister in Granting Stage Carriage Permits:
The primary issue in this appeal was whether the Chief Minister of a State has any role to play in the grant of a Stage Carriage Permit in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellants, who were bus owners, contended that the Chief Minister had no authority to entertain or process applications for permits, which should be filed with the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) as specified under the Act. The Supreme Court held that the Motor Vehicles Act is a self-contained code and all authorities mentioned therein are statutory authorities bound by the provisions of the Act. The Court emphasized that the State, although having general control, must exercise such control strictly in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India. The Chief Minister, therefore, could not act in derogation of the statutory provisions and had no business interfering with the functioning of the RTA.

2. Legality of the Permit Granted to the Fourth Respondent:
The fourth respondent, who had political connections, directly approached the Chief Minister for a route permit. The Chief Minister's office issued directives to the Commissioner (Transport) to grant the permit, which was subsequently communicated to the RTA. The Supreme Court found this process to be in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, as the application should have been filed directly with the RTA. The Court noted that the Chief Minister's actions and the subsequent forwarding of the application by the Commissioner (Transport) were wholly unwarranted and violated the constitutional scheme. The Court cited precedents, including D. Nataraja Mudaliar vs. The State Transport Authority, Madras, and Commissioner of Police vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, to emphasize that statutory authorities must act within their jurisdiction and cannot be influenced by non-statutory authorities.

3. Procedural Adherence by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA):
The appellants argued that their applications, which were filed prior to that of the fourth respondent, were not considered by the RTA. The Supreme Court observed that the RTA, being a statutory body, must act strictly in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Act. The Court criticized the RTA for affirming an affidavit together with the State, indicating a lack of independence in its quasi-judicial function. The Court directed that the applications of the appellants be considered by the RTA in accordance with the law and without any undue influence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, and imposed a cost of Rupees one lakh on the State, to be paid to the National Legal Services Authority. The Court reiterated that all governmental orders must comply with statutory and constitutional provisions, and emphasized the importance of maintaining the independence of statutory authorities.

---