Writ Petition Against Grant of Interstate Permit Dismissed for Availability of Alternative Statutory Remedy Under Motor Vehicles Act

The petitioner, an existing bus operator holding an Interstate Regular Stage Carriage Permit for the Ambikapur-Ranchi route, challenged an order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the State Transport Authority (Respondent No. 2).

This order granted a new interstate permit to Respondent No. 4 for the Ambikapur-Bhawnathpur route.

Use of this route involved a reciprocal agreement between the States of Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand.

The petitioner alleged that the grant violated the terms of the reciprocal agreement regarding trip limits (Clause 10(Q)) and overnight stays (Clause 10(M)), and that the timings directly clashed with the petitioner’s established schedule.

The Respondents countered that the permit was not yet operationally valid as it lacked mandatory countersignature from Jharkhand authorities and argued that the petitioner should have exhausted statutory appellate remedies.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Motor Vehicles Act?

2. Whether the challenge to the permit is premature given the absence of countersignature by the neighboring State under Section 88?

Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 mandates the countersignature of a permit by the State Transport Authority of another State for interstate operations.

Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal for parties aggrieved by permit-related orders.

Reciprocal Agreement (dated 28.03.2008) between Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, particularly Clauses 10(Q) and 10(M) governing trip frequency and night halts.

The Court analyzed the operational status of the impugned permit and found that while Respondent No. 2 had granted the permit, it had not yet attained "operational validity" because the mandatory countersignature from the State of Jharkhand under Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act was still pending.

Consequently, the Court found the petitioner’s grievances regarding timing clashes and agreement violations to be premature for writ jurisdiction.

The Court noted that the Motor Vehicles Act provides a specific quasi-judicial appellate mechanism under Section 89 to address disputes involving permit grants and reciprocal agreement breaches.

The Court determined that since a specialized forum (the State Transport Appellate Tribunal) exists to resolve these factual and legal disputes, the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not warranted at this stage.

It held that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The writ petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the competent Appellate Tribunal for redressal of grievances relating to the permit grant and timing issues.