# Shanti Dham School & Anr v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1630
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-12-10
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.18432 of 2010
- **Bench:** V.K. Shukla, Suneet Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shanti-dham-school-anr-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42845
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Motor Vehicle Act-1988-Section 68(1)-
Power of State Transport Authorityfixation of age limit-of transport vehicleused for transportation of students-heldproper-in
absence
of
allegation
for
violation of Art. 14-can not be interferedkeeping the security of passengers and
to control pollution.

Held: Para-30
Here in the present case also as far as
this Court is concerned it will not at all
come to the rescue or reprieve of the
petitioner by directing the Respondents
not to fix age of vehicle at the point of
time of issuance of permit/continuance
of permit, as condition of permit, as
challenge made is unsustainable for the
reasons already mentioned above, the
same being in the realm of policy
decision for securing safety of passenger
and
control
pollution.
3 All] Shanti Dham School & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1631
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1980 SC 800; 1995 AWC 890; AIR 1995
Kar 264; 2002(2) ACC 293(Cal); W.P. No.
46190 of 2003; W.P. No. 19461 of 2010; W.P.
No. 58181 of 2010; W.P. No. 19461 of 2010;
W.P. No. 46190 of 2003; W.P. No. 26114 of
2011; W.P. No. 9950 of 2013.

## Text

1630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
disturbing the peace and tranquility of the
society and also without interfering with
the right of a peaceful enjoyment of the
property by a lawful allottee.

4. Whenever, a complaint is received
that the lawful allottee intending to raise
construction over the premises in pursuance
of the sanctioned plan is being prevented by
anti-social elements or person or a group of
persons or by an association, the Task Force
so constituted shall ensure to remove such
hurdle and shall further ensure that lawful
allottee is permitted to raise construction
over the plot in pursuance of the sanction
plan and requisite number of police force
shall be deployed for the security of the
allottee during the construction work, if
necessary. It shall be open to police to
register F.I.R. & proceed in accordance to
law against disturbing elements.

16. Let Lucknow Development
Authority as well as U.P. Housing Board
Lucknow appoint a nodal officer to
receive complaints to adjudicate the
controversy in terms of the directions
issued hereinabove with regard to ponds
and water reservoirs within a period of
one month and also issue appropriate
directions or circulars accordingly.

17. The District Magistrate/Senior
Superintendent of Police, Lucknow shall also
pass appropriate directions/circulars for
constituting the Task Force in terms of the
directions issued hereinabove within a period
of one month.

18. Let a compliance report be
submitted to this court immediately after
one month.

19. With the consent of learned
counsel for the parties and directions
issued hereinabove, both the writ petitions
are decided finally.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.K. SHUKLA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.18432 of 2010
alongwith W.P. No. 64382 of 2010, W.P.
No. 21802 of 2010, W.P. No. 21928 of
2010,W.P. No. 27009 of 2010, W.P. No.
27010 of 2010; W.P. No. 28407 of 2010.

Shanti Dham School & Anr... .Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. ..Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Bajrang Bahadur Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Motor Vehicle Act-1988-Section 68(1)-
Power of State Transport Authorityfixation of age limit-of transport vehicleused for transportation of students-heldproper-in
absence
of
allegation
for
violation of Art. 14-can not be interferedkeeping the security of passengers and
to control pollution.

Held: Para-30
Here in the present case also as far as
this Court is concerned it will not at all
come to the rescue or reprieve of the
petitioner by directing the Respondents
not to fix age of vehicle at the point of
time of issuance of permit/continuance
of permit, as condition of permit, as
challenge made is unsustainable for the
reasons already mentioned above, the
same being in the realm of policy
decision for securing safety of passenger
and
control
pollution.
3 All] Shanti Dham School & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1631
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1980 SC 800; 1995 AWC 890; AIR 1995
Kar 264; 2002(2) ACC 293(Cal); W.P. No.
46190 of 2003; W.P. No. 19461 of 2010; W.P.
No. 58181 of 2010; W.P. No. 19461 of 2010;
W.P. No. 46190 of 2003; W.P. No. 26114 of
2011; W.P. No. 9950 of 2013.

(Delivered by Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.)

1. In this bunch of writ petitions,
petitioners have come up with the
following relief:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned circular no. 433-STA/201058STA/2007 dated 5.3.2010 issued by
respondent no. 2 and order/direction dated
19.03.2010 issued by respondent no. 3
contained as (Annexure no 1 & 2
respectively) to the writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent no. 4 to not interfere in the
peaceful operation of the school buses of
the petitioners which are being plying to
carry the children.

(iii) Issues any other writ, order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper under circumstances
of the case."

2. Writ No. 18432 of 2010 is being
treated as leading writ petition.

3. Petitioners of the leading writ petition
have come up with case that the purposes of
providing easy and fair transportation facilities
to the students of the institution the petitioners
have obtained permits for operation of their
vehicle No. MP-17A-2964 Model 1994, U.P.
95-6979, Model 1991, MP-16-A-7475 Model
1998), DL-1P-2778 Model 1992, MP-36-P0120 Model 1998, MP-16-A-0711 model
1992, U.P. 75-7886 Model 1992, U.P. 07-B6754 Model 1992 & HR 26-A-1148 model
1992, U.P. 78-B-6327 Model 1992, U.P. 78B-6551 Model 1992, M.P.16-A-1163 Model
1992, DL-1P-3900 Model 1992. Petitioners
have proceeded to mention that meeting of the
State Transport Authority had been held on
23.02.2010 for fixation of age of transport
vehicles State Transport Authority took
decision for fixation of age limit of the
transport vehicles in question in the backdrop
of road saftey, pollution free transport facility,
passenger facility. Thereafter minutes of the
meeting dated 23.02.2010 has been circulated
by secretary, State Transport Authority in
respect of fixation of age of vehicle in
question
vide
circular
notice
dated
05.03.2010, addressed to each Regional
Transport
Authority
provided
therein
respective age of vehicles, in respective
regions and respective cities in exercise of
authority conferred under Sub-Section (4) of
Section 68.

4. Petitioners at this juncture are
before this Court and their submission is
that fixation of age of vehicles in question
is totally arbitrary and without any
foundation and basis.

5. Courter affidavit has been filed
and therein stand has been taken that
Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 has been
amended by Act No. 59 of 1988 and the
said Act in question came in force with
effect from 1st April 1989 replacing the
Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 and the
amendment in the aforesaid Act has been
made to reduce the vehicle pollution and
in order to ensure safety of the road user.
Earlier to amendment of Act, 27 of 2000
requirement of obtaining Permits for
educational institution buses was not
mandatory but after enforcement of
1632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amendment Act, 27 of 2000, same has
become mandatory. It has also been stated
that re-scheduling of the age of motor
vehicle has been introduced with the aim
and object to maintain the environmental
condition and in public interest. State
Transport Authority has fixed the said
condition for the purpose of grant of
permit for use of particular vehicle for a
particular period, in the interest of road
safety, benefit and security of passengers
and students as well as the pollution free
transportation system, and accordingly
there is no infirmity in the action taken.

6. Rejoinder affidavit has also been
filed appending therein copy of the judgment
and order of State Transport Authority in
Revision No. 20 of 2010 with connected
revisions.

7. After pleadings mentioned above
have been exchanged present writ petition
in question has been taken up for final
hearing and disposal.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted with vehemence that petitioners
are running school buses and State Transport
Authority has acted with material illegality in
fixing different age of the vehicle without
considering road worthiness of the vehicle in
question and fixation of age of vehicle has no
nexus with the object sought to be achieved
accordingly the order in question be quashed
and petitioner be permitted to ply their buses
upto the age of 20 years.

9. Countering the said submission,
learned Standing counsel on the other
hand contended that petitioners cannot be
permitted to ply their vehicles beyond the
prescribed age as described in the policy
decision that has been taken by the State
Transport authority and specially when its
a conscious decision based on road safety,
safety of students, pollution free traffic
and as larger interest is being served, this
Court should not at all interfere as same is
virtually in the realm of policy decision.

10. First issue is to be answered by this
Court is as to whether State Transport
Authority has transgressed and overstepped
its authority in issuing Circular dated
05.03.2010 at the point of time when it
proceeds to fixed age of buses run by the
institution concerned.

11. The first enactment relating to
motor vehicles in India was the Indian Motor
Vehicles
Act,
1914.
Said
Act
has
subsequently been replaced by Motor
Vehicle Act, 1939. The Act of 1939 had
been amended several times. In spite of
several amendment, it was felt necessary to
bring out comprehensive legislation keeping
in view the change in transport technology,
pattern of passenger and freight movement,
development of road network in the country
and particularly the improved techniques in
the motor vehicles management. In this
direction lot of homework was done by
Ministry of Transport, by discussing the
matter with the Transport Minister of all
States and Union Territories, and then Bill
had been introduced in the Parliament, with
the view to provide an Act to consolidate and
amend law relating to motor vehicles, known
as Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. After the said
Act in question has been enforced, on
various occasions amendments have been
introduced
namely
Motor
Vehicles
(Amendment) Act, 1994; Motor Vehicles
(Amendment) Act, 2001.

12. For the purposes of the case in
hand, this Court takes note that under the
definition Clause, sub-section (ii) of Section
2 defines "educational institution bus" means
3 All] Shanti Dham School & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1633
an omnibus, which is owned by a college,
school or other educational system and used
solely for the purpose of transporting student
or staff of educational institution in connection
with any of its activities. Chapter v deals with
control of transport vehicle and Section 66 (1)
restricts use of vehicle as transport vehicle in
any public place without the permit and if
permit is there, then strictly as per the terms
and condition of permit. Earlier for school
buses, there was no requirement of permit, but
by means of amendment introduced by Act
No. 27 of 2000, even school bus is required to
have a permit. Power to grant permit is
conferred in transport authority. Under
Section 68 (1) State Government is
empowered to constitute for the State, State
Transport Authority to exercise and discharge,
the powers and functions specified in subsection (3) and in like manner constitute
Regional Transport Authorises. Section 68(3)
obligates State Transport Authority and every
Regional Transport to effect to any directions
issued under section 67, alongwith various
other functions. For the purposes of exercising
and discharging the power and functions
under sub-Section (3), State Transport
Authority, may issue directives to "Regional
Transport Authority and he is obliged to
ensure its compliance.

13. In order to consider the question as
to whether the Regional Transport Authority,
while granting permits can impose condition
for grant of permit i.e. can he fix the age of
the vehicle in question. Section 68 (3) and
(4) of the Act, 1988 being relevant for the
present case are being extracted below:

"68.Transport Authorities-

(1)............................

(2)........................

(3) The State Transport Authority and
every Regional Transport Authority shall
give effect to any directions issued under
section 67 and the State Transport Authority
shall, subject to such directions and save as
otherwise provided by or under this Act,
exercise and discharge throughout the State
the following powers and functions, namely
:-

(a) to co-ordinate and regulate the
activities and policies of the Regional

Transport Authorities, if any, of the
State ;

(b) to perform the duties of a
Regional Transport Authority where there
is no such Authority and, if it thinks fit or
if so required by a Regional Transport
Authority, to perform those duties in
respect of any route common to two or
more regions;

(c) to settle all disputes and decide
all matters on which differences of
opinion arise between Regional Transport
Authorities;

[(ca) Government to formulate routes
for plying stage carriages; and ]

(d) to discharge such other functions
as may be prescribed.

(4) For the purpose of exercising and
discharging the powers and functions
specified in sub-section (3), a State Transport
Authority may, subject to such conditions as
may be prescribed, issue directions to any
Regional Transport Authority, and the
Regional Transport Authority shall, in the
discharge of its functions under this Act, give
effect to and be guided by such directions."

14. Under Section 68 (3) of the Act,
1988, as noted and quoted above State
1634 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Transport
Authority
subject
to
the
directions issued by the State Government
under Section 67 shall exercise and
discharge
throughout
the
State
the
functions and powers as enumerated in
sub-section (3) and one of the major
functions provided for in sub-section (3)
is to co-ordinate and regulate the activities
and policies of the Regional Transport
Authorities of the State.

15. Apex Court in the case Subhash
Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors,
reported in AIR 1980 SC 800 in alike
circumstances had occasion to consider a
condition in Section 51(2) (x) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to the effect
that vehicle should not be more than
seven years of age from the date of
registration during the validity of permit.
The above provision was challenged. The
Apex Court upheld the said condition by
taking following view:

"4. Section 51(2) (x) authorises the
imposition of any condition, of course,
having a nexus with the statutory purpose.
It is undeniable that human safety is one
such purpose. The State's neglect in this
area of policing public transport is
deplorable but when it does act by
prescribing a condition the court cannot
be persuaded into little legalism and
harmful negativism. The short question is
whether the prescription that the bus shall
be at a seven-year old model one is
relevant to the condition of the vehicle
and its passengers' comparative safety and
comfort
on
our
chaotic
highways.
Obviously, it is. The older the model, the
less the chances of the latest safety
measures being built into the vehicle.
Every new model incorporates new
devices to reduce danger and promote
comfort. Every new model assures its age
to be young, fresh and strong, less likely
to suffer sudden failures and breakages,
less susceptible to wear and tear and
mental fatigue leading to unexpected
collapse. When we buy a car or any other
machine why do we look for the latest
model? Vintage vehicles are good for
centenarian display of curios and cannot
but be mobile menaces on our notoriously
neglected
highways.
We
have
no
hesitation to hold, from the point of view
of the human rights of road users, that the
condition regarding the model of the
permitted bus is within jurisdiction, and
not to prescribe such safety clauses is
abdication of statutory duty."

16. Thereafter before the Division
Bench judgment of this Court in the case
of Radhey Shyam Sharma Vs. Regional
Transport
Authority,
Kathgodam,
Nainital, reported in AIR 1991 Alld 158,
Rule 88 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules,
1989 which provided that motor vehicle
covered under permit should not be more
than 9 years old with regard to national
permit came up for consideration. The
model condition of the aforesaid rule was
challenged and the Division Bench of this
Court upheld the vires of the rules and
also the condition. Relevant extract of the
said judgement is as follows:

"22. In view of the reports mentioned
above and for the reasons given in the
counter-affidavit, Government was fully
justified in fixing the age/model condition
of nine years of vehicles for use under
national permit and it cannot be said that
there was no reasons or material with the
Government for framing the impugned
rules. In fact from the perusal of the
aforesaid reports and the reasons given in
the counter-affidavit of the Government,
we are satisfied that the Government was
3 All] Shanti Dham School & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1635
fully justified in fixing the age limit of
nine years of a vehicle for operation under
national permit."

The copy of the circular dated
05/3/2010, issued by the STA on the basis
of the resolution dated 23/2/2010, issued
in exercise of power under Section 68(4)
of the Act, 1988 has been brought on
record as Annexure SCA-1

17. Thereafter yet another Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.
Munni Devi Vs. Regional Transport
Authority, Meerut & Ors reported in 1995
AWC 890,. wherein, the R.T.A., Meerut
while granting permit has put a condition
that not more than 10 years old vehicles
be provided. The said condition was
assailed by stage carriage permit holders.
This Court took the view that the STA can
issue direction regarding fixation of age
of vehicles. Even grant of permit by the
R.T.A of the vehicle owners having 10
years old vehicles was upheld. Relevant
extract of the said judgement is as
follows:

"6.State
Transport
Authority,
Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as
S.T.A.) has fixed the model condition of
twenty years for vehicles to be placed
under stage carriage permits with the
result that an operator is entitled to ply a
vehicle which is not more than twenty
years old. S.T.A. has also, in this
connection, issued direction on 9.3.1993
under sub-section (4) of Section 68, to all
the R.T.A.s. in this State requiring them
to impose only twenty years model
condition for plain routes and ten years
model condition for hill routes. These
directions have been issued by the S.T.A.
in view of the difference of opinion on the
question of model condition between the
R.T.As. in this State. There is no dispute
that S.T.A. can issue such a direction.
Direction issued by S.T.A. under the
above provisions is binding on the R.T.A.
which is to "give effect to and be guided
by such directions". R.T.A. while granting
permits by the impugned resolution has
referred to the aforesaid directions of
S.T.A. and was conscious of the fact of
fixation twenty years model condition by
it and, therefore, it has not fixed any
model condition contrary to that fixed by
S.T.A. What it has done is that it has
granted permits to persons holding
vehicles of not more than ten years old.
Fixing the model condition and granting
permits to better models are two different
things. By model condition, the maximum
period upto which a vehicle can be used
as a stage carriage under a permit is fixed.
Without
transgressing
the
model
condition, it is always open to the
transport authorities to grant permits to
those applicants who have vehicles of
better model. Such a condition is in the
interest of travelling public. The order of
the R.T.A. thus is not contrary to the
direction issued by the S.T.A."

18. Even the other High Courts,
faced with such a situation has been
taking the same view, that such condition
of prescribing age for vehicle, can be
imposed while granting stage carriage
permit. Karnataka High Court in the case
of Bharat Kumar Vs. Karnataka State
Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1995
Kar 264, took the view that even in the
absence of rules, conditions could be
prescribed in the permit and such
conditions are reasonable and such power to
impose condition is traceable to the
provision of Act itself. The expression
"Specified description" used in Section 72
(2) of 1988 Act is similar to expression used
1636 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in Section 48 (3) of 1939 Act. Specified
description of stage carriage is not confined
to its class or make but same includes the
year of manufacture also. Calcutta High
Court also in the case of Prasanna Kumar
Dua Vs. State of West Bengal 2002 (2)
ACC 293 (Cal) has taken the view that
Transport Authorities are well within their
authority to impose condition not to grant
stage carriage permit to vehicles which are
more than three years old from the date of
initial registration for security safety of
passengers and to control pollution.

19. State Transport Authority under
the scheme of things provided for has
ample authority to fix age of vehicles to
be placed under "stage carriage" permits,
and issue necessary directive in the said
direction
to
Regional
Transport
Authorities, who are duty bound to give
effect to and be guided by such directions.
In view of this Regional Transport
Authority being bound by the directive of
State Transport Authority, at the point of
time, when he proceeds to issue permit, as
one of the conditions of permit, can
provide for the age of vehicle in question.
Such power to impose condition is
traceable and referable to the provisions
and the scheme of Act itself, and it cannot
be said that such power is exercised by
the authority beyond its competence or
beyond its jurisdiction.

20. In the present case, this much is
clear that Circular dated 05.03.2010 has
been issued by the Secretary State
Transport Authority on the basis of
resolution dated 23.02.2010 issued in
exercise of the authority vested under
Section 68 (4) of the Act. The circular in
question clearly reflects that same deals
with specially in respect of school bus by
mentioning that for school bus, the
security
measures
and
passengers
facilities has to be better as compared to
other passenger vehicle. As to what
should be age fixed for school bus in
question, the same has been distinctly
dealt with qua the other category
passenger
bus,
and
resolve
has
accordingly been taken. In rural are a age
of school bus without CNG has been
fixed as 12 years and in urban area
without CNG has been fixed as 10 years.
Similarly in urban area, age of school bus
with CNG has been fixed 12 years and in
rural area with CNG has been fixed as 15
yeas. Once no disparity is there, and there
is total uniformity, in the matter of
fixation of age of bus, in the entire state
qua rural area and urban area then said
action cannot be faulted. State Transport
Authority has neither transgressed nor
over stepped its jurisdiction in fixing age
of school bus to be placed under stage
"carriage permits" for securing safety of
students and to control pollution.

21. This Court would be failing in
its duty by not taking note of the order
passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
46190 of 2003 (Ram Prakash and others
Vs. State of U.P.) wherein this Court had
issued following direction.

" The Secretary, Regional Transport
Authority shall issue permit to the
petitioner after verifying the fact that the
petitioner
has
a
vehicle
which
is
roadworthy and fit in condition. He will
ensure that the vehicle which is owned by
petitioner is of the model which is within
period of 20 years"

22. This Court finds, that the order
that had been passed in the year 2003, on
15.10.2003 is being followed bereft of the
order of State Transport Authority dated
05.03.2010, impugned in the present writ
3 All] Shanti Dham School & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1637
petition. The said order has been followed
in the following writ petitions. Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 19461 of 2010, Sri Guru
Ram Rai Public School Vs.State of U.P.
decided on 09.04.2010 wherein following
orders have been passed:

Hon'ble Askok Bhushan,J.

Hon'ble Virendra Singh, J

After hearing the learned counsel for
the petitioner and the learned standing
counsel, we dispose of this petition in
terms of the judgement and order of this
Court dated 15.10.2003 passed in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 46190 of 2003
(Ram Prakash and another Vs. State of
U.P. and others) wherein this Court had
issued the following direction:-

"The Secretary, Regional Transport
Authority, respondent No.3 shall issue
permit to the petitioner after verifying the
fact that the petitioner has a vehicle which
is roadworthy and fit in condition. He will
also ensure that the vehicle which is
owned by the petitioner is of the model
which is within the period of 20 years."

Order Date: 9.4.2010

23. This Court in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 29567 of 2010 decided on
21.05.2010 passed following orders:

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J

After hearing the learned counsel for
the petitioner and the learned standing
counsel, we dispose of this petition in
terms of the judgement and order of this
Court dated 15.10.2003 passed in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 46190 of 2003
(Ram Prakash and another Vs. State of
U.P. and others) wherein this Court had
issued the following direction:-

"The Secretary, Regional Transport
Authority, respondent No.3 shall issue
permit to the petitioner after verifying the
fact that the petitioner has a vehicle which
is roadworthy and fit in condition. He will
also ensure that the vehicle which is
owned by the petitioner is of the model
which is within the period of 20 years."

Dt. 21.5.2010

24. This Court in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 58181 of 2010 (Vikash
Modern School Vs. State of U.P. and
others) decided on 21.09.2010 passed
following orders;

Hon'ble Amitava Lala, J

Hon'ble Askok Srivastava,J

After hearing the learned counsel for
the petitioner and the learned standing
counsel, we dispose of this petition in
terms of the judgement and order of this
Court dated 15.10.2003 passed in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 46190 of 2003
(Ram Prakash and another Vs. State of
U.P. and others) wherein this Court had
issued the following direction:-

"The Secretary, Regional Transport
Authority, respondent No.3 shall issue
permit to the petitioner after verifying the
fact that the petitioner has a vehicle which is
roadworthy and fit in condition. He will also
ensure that the vehicle which is owned by the
petitioner is of the model which is within the
period of 20 years.

No order is passed as to cost

Order dated 21.09.2010
1638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

25. Based on various order passed by
this Court, and the said order being impugned
before the Tribunal, State Transport Authority
proceeded to place the impugned resolution of
the present writ petition in abeyance on
14.06.2010 for period of one year or till the
matter is decided by the Court, whichever is
earlier. The travesty of justice is also fully
reflected from the circumstances and the fact,
that the Tribunal in stead of deciding the
matter on merits, in its order dated
08.10.2010, has proceeded to mention that
judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.
19461 of 2010 Sri Guru Ram Rai Public
School Vs. State of U.P. has been produced
before him wherein judgment in writ petition
no. 46190 of 2003 Ram Prakash Vs. State of
U.P. has been relied upon and the above
mentioned order of High Court is applicable
to Revisions therefore, Revisions before him
and are allowed. The fact of the matter is that
validly of resolution on its merit has not at all
been gone into.

26. Revision before the State Transport
Appellate
Tribunal
U.P.
at
Lucknow
alongwith bunch of Revision has been
decided on 08.10.2010 by proceeding to
make following observations:

"Revisions are allowed. Impugned
orders are set aside. It is hereby directed that
the age limit for the stage carriage plying on
various routes:single storied vehicles shall be
20 years and for non-C.N.G. city bus shall be
15 years and for C.N.G. city bus shall be 12
years as existed before 23.2.2010. However,
the age limit for C.N.G. vehicles in
Ghaziabad shall be 15 years.

Record received from the lower
authorities be sent back to their offices.

A copy of this judgment be kept on
the
record
of
each
of
Revisions
Nos.21/2010 to 41/2010, 43/2010 to
64/2010, 69/2010, 99/2010, 100/2010,
104/2010,107/2010 to 158/2010,175/2010
to 177/2010 & 199/2010 and the original
judgment be retained on the record of
Revision No.20/2010.

Sd/-illegible

8.102010

(Suresh
Kumar
Srivastava)
Chairman".

27. Decision taken in the Revision
by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal
U.P. at Lucknow was confined only in
reference of single storied vehicles, NonC.N.G vehicles city buses, C.N.G vehicles
city buses, and at no point of time before
the State Transport Appellate Tribunal
U.P. at Lucknow there has been an issue
in respect of school buses and the net
effect of the same is that as far as school
buses are concerned there age has to be
dealt with as per the criteria as has been
provided therein.

28. In the case of Mahraj Uddin and
others Vs. State of U.P. and others (Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 26114 of 2011)
decided on 26.05.2011, this Court has
been dealing the incumbents who have
been plying their three wheeler within the
municipal limit, in such a situation this
Court proceeded to pass following orders
:

"In view of the foregoing discussions
and conclusions, we dispose of this writ
petition with the following directions:

1.The S.T.A. is fully justified to put
model condition regarding age of vehicles
(including three wheeler).

2.The decision of the STA dated
23/2/2010, which is the basis for putting
model condition in the petitioners permit
3 All] Prahlad Kumar Sahu Vs. Shiv Prasad & Ors.
1639
that vehicles are to be changed after 5
years, having been set-aside, the period of
5 years in the model condition in the
permits of the petitioners shall stand
substituted by the period of 7 years which
was prevalent prior to 23/2/2010.

3. The model condition in the
petitioners
vehicles
(which
are
three
wheelers) shall be read to the effect that the
petitioners have to change their vehicles after
7 years, failing which their permits shall be
treated to be automatically cancelled.

4.That the above directions shall
continue till the STA takes any other
decision fixing any other age of vehicles
(three wheelers) in accordance with law.

The prayer of the petitioners that a
direction be issued to the respondent no.2,
Regional Transport Officer, Meerut to
permit the petitioners to ply their three
wheelers up to the age of 20 years, cannot
be granted and is refused."

29. This Court once again in the case
of Surise Public School Through Caretaker
and others Vs. State of U.P. and others
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9950 2013)
decided on 22.02.2013 wherein similar
prayer had been made for issuing direction
in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to issue permit and fitness
certificate to the petitioners' vehicles fixing
the age of vehicles upto 20 years old model
has not been accepted and writ petition in
question has been dismissed.

30. Here in the present case also as far
as this Court is concerned it will not at all
come to the rescue or reprieve of the
petitioner by directing the Respondents not
to fix age of vehicle at the point of time of
issuance of permit/continuance of permit, as
condition of permit, as challenge made is
unsustainable for the reasons already
mentioned above, the same being in the
realm of policy decision for securing safety
of passenger and control pollution.

31. In view of this there is no scope
of interference and accordingly this bunch
of writ petition are dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.19937 of 2009

Prahlad Kumar Sahu... Petitioner
Versus
Shiv Prasad & Ors.... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjay Agarwal,Sri Ashish Agarwal
Sri Prakash Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Prakash Gupta, Sri K.K. Tiwari

U.P. Urban Buildings(Regulation of Letting
Rent
&
Eviction)
Act-1972-Section
21(i)(a)- Bonafide need of of land lordPrescribed authority found the need of
land lord to settled his -unemployed sonbonafide no effort made for alternate
accommodation by tenant-reversed by
Appellate Court on pertext need of the son
of landlord can not be considered-as well
as son is playing three wheals can not be
said unemployed held-order by Appellate
Court not sustainable in eye of law.

Held: Para-11
Here in this case, the prescribed authority
has held that as during the pendency of the
release application, the tenant has not
made an effort to search out any alternative
accommodation, therefore the comparative
hardship of the landlord would be greater.
The appellate authority has not addressed