RTA directed to investigate alleged fraudulent affidavits despite substantive permit reliefs becoming redundant.

The Petitioner, owner of a bus (CG05J/0152), entered into a lease agreement with Respondent No. 2 to operate his vehicle under permit No. 112/2005, which was valid until December 31, 2020.

The Petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 2 filed an application for the substitution of the Petitioner’s vehicle with a bus owned by Respondent No. 3 (CG08AK/8100) using fabricated affidavits and without providing notice or canceling the existing lease.

The Petitioner challenged the substitution proceedings (Annexure P/1) and the failure of Respondent No. 4 (Regional Transport Authority) to verify the ownership status and the authenticity of the application.

During the hearing, the Petitioner’s counsel submitted that while the primary reliefs had become redundant due to the passage of time, the issue of the false affidavits remained.

1. Whether the proceedings for the substitution of the vehicle on the permit were conducted legally and in adherence to the procedures established under the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. Whether the Petitioner should be granted liberty to approach the Regional Transport Authority to raise grievances regarding the alleged use of false and fabricated affidavits.

The Court’s directions were rooted in the procedural mandates of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, which govern the substitution of vehicles under an existing permit and the verification of ownership and lease status.

It further relied on the administrative principle that statutory authorities must consider and adjudicate upon allegations of fraud or procedural irregularities, such as the submission of false affidavits, in accordance with the law.

The Court observed the Petitioner’s admission that the specific reliefs originally sought in the petition had become redundant because the permit duration in question had lapsed.

However, the Petitioner emphasized that the substitution was initiated through fraudulent means, specifically through a "fake and false affidavit".

Since the State counsel did not oppose the Petitioner’s request for liberty to seek administrative redress, the Court found it appropriate to delegate the matter to the statutory authority.

The Court reasoned that Respondent No. 4 is the competent body to investigate the factual grievances regarding the lease status and the validity of the affidavits submitted during the substitution process.

The Court granted the Petitioner liberty to approach Respondent No. 4 (Regional Transport Authority, Raipur) and directed said Respondent to consider the Petitioner's grievances and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law within a reasonable period.