# Smt. Gyan Wati v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1232
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-08-26
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.11551 of 2013
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-gyan-wati-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42666
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226-
Appointment of Angan Bari Karyakartipost advertised 31.01.11-selection list
finalized-on complaint-Naib Tehsildar in
report
dt.
15.10.12
found
income
certificate-wholly genuine document-but
no final order passed by D.M.-in between
by G.O. 04.09.12 ban on selection of
Angan Bari Karyakarti imposed-whether
appointment can be denied in garb by
G.O. 04.09.12-having prospective effect
?
held-'No'
ban
applicable
where
selection under process and not in such
cases where selection completed and
approval
pending
since
long.
3 All] Smt. Gyan Wati Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1233
Held: Para-21 & 22

## Text

1232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on the ground that it is without jurisdiction.
In executive and administrative matters, such
flexibility is required in the interest of
working of the Government and an issue on
this kind of allocation of responsibility can
be made or raised only if some law is shown
to have been violated.

10. Ultimately, in a public interest
litigation, the petitioner is required to show that
the prayer, which he is seeking, shall promote
public interest. It is very difficult for the Court,
considering the set of facts and controversial
issues, to come to any final conclusion that the
petitioner's prayer, if granted, shall promote
public interest. Functioning of a democracy in a
healthy
and
vibrant
manner
requires
establishment
of
healthy
practices
and
conventions. All such matters cannot be
governed by statutory law. For example, one
can see the functioning of Government of
United Kingdom. England has no written
constitution but its system is known to be
mother of all democracies. It is the
responsibility of those in power to establish
healthy practices and conventions which can
alone be the root of democracy in this country,
which has achieved independence recently. It
would not be proper for this Court to interfere
in such matters of policy.

11. So far as the issue of wastage of
public funds is concerned, it is not the case of
the petitioner that Government cannot issue
advertisements in Newspapers or Television.
Admittedly,
different
Governments
at
different levels have been doing so since long
time. If visual image is published or telecast in
a format which includes more than one or two
photographs then as to how much additional
financial burden would be involved, is
difficult to be ascertained or appreciated.

12. Further, it will be hazardous to
lay down, in concrete terms, the ideal
relationship between the party in power
and the Government which it has
provided. That relationship is itself a
tender and delicate relationship which
should not be disturbed by extraneous
forces. Only exceptional situation can
invite intervention of the Court when the
constitutional provisions are under threat
or have been breached.

13. We do not find any good reasons
to grant the prayers made in this writ
petition. The writ petition is, therefore,
dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.08.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.11551 of 2013

Smt. Gyan Wati

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, Sri Rajendra Sonker
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Hariom Singh
Sri V.S. Parmar

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226-
Appointment of Angan Bari Karyakartipost advertised 31.01.11-selection list
finalized-on complaint-Naib Tehsildar in
report
dt.
15.10.12
found
income
certificate-wholly genuine document-but
no final order passed by D.M.-in between
by G.O. 04.09.12 ban on selection of
Angan Bari Karyakarti imposed-whether
appointment can be denied in garb by
G.O. 04.09.12-having prospective effect
?
held-'No'
ban
applicable
where
selection under process and not in such
cases where selection completed and
approval
pending
since
long.
3 All] Smt. Gyan Wati Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1233
Held: Para-21 & 22
21. It is true that in the present case,
validity
of
last
para
of
G.O.
dated
04.09.2012 in so far as it covers certain
cases of earlier vacancies, has not been
challenged. But, that will not help the
respondents in any manner, for the reason
that this Court is not striking down the last
paragraph of G.O. dated 04.09.2012, but a
reasonable plain reading thereof and also
the legal exposition of law as discussed
above, is sufficient to make its construction
in the manner, that, it shall operate only in
those cases where selection has not been
finalized upto the stage of preparation of
select list and submitted to the District
Magistrate,
rendering
the
selection
committee functus officio. Approval of
District Magistrate would only make the
way clear to Zila Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari to
proceed to make appointment but approval
of District Magistrate as such, will not
empower selection committee to treat it as
continuing. Since this court is making a
purposive reasonable construction of the
G.O. dated 04.09.2012, and not striking it
down, the factum that the petitioner has
not challenged its validity, will be of no help
to the respondents.

22. Moreover, the fact remains that the
authorities themselves did not pass any
order, which they ought to have, in order
to
avoid
any
confusion
or
misconception/misinterpretation,
in
respect of earlier selection, wherein the
petitioner was already selected.

Case Law discussed:
Spl. Appeal No. 49 of 2013; AIR 1983 SC 852;
1983(1) SCALE 296; AIR 1983 SC 1143; AIR
1988
SC
2068-1988(Supple.)
SCC
740;
1998(9) SCC 223; W.P. No. 13347 of 2001;
Service Bench No. 9 of 2013.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. This writ petition is directed
against advertisement dated 04.01.2013,
published
by
District
Programming
Officer,
District
Kanpur
Nagar,
respondent no.3, for recruitment/selection
of Angan Bari Karyakatri (worker) in
various Gram Panchayat of Ghatampur
Block, district Kanpur Nagar. In this case,
dispute relates to village panchayat Sajeti
.

2. It is said earlier an advertisement
was published on 31.01.2011 for the
aforesaid post and some others pursuant
whereto, the petitioner applied, selected and
recommended by respondent no.4. A
complaint was made by respondent no.5,
Smt. Ram Shree, wife of Dhirendra Singh,
regarding income certificate of petitioner,
whereupon an inquiry was made by Naib
Tehsildar, Ghatampur, District Kanpur
Nagar.
He
submitted
report
dated
02.06.2011
verifying
genuineness
of
income certificate having been issued by
Tehsildar Ghatampur to petitioner, verifying
her income as Rs. 18,000/- per annum. It
appears that another report was also
submitted by Naib Tehsildar on 15.10.2012
wherein also income certificate of the
petitioner was certified to be genuine. Since
no letter of appointment was issued to
petitioner, she submitted an application on
06.11.2012 but instead of passing any order
thereon, the impugned advertisement has
been published. The petitioner has been
informed that the aforesaid advertisement
has been published in view of the
Government
Order
dated
04.09.2012
(Annexure 10 to the writ petition).

3. The case set up by petitioner is
that once the selection is finalized, if there
is any fault/delay on the part of
respondent
authorities
in
issuing
appointment letter, that will not provide a
ground to cancel entire selection and to
proceed for selection afresh in the light of
new policy formulated by Government
Order (for short "G.O.")dated 04.09.2012.
1234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. A detailed counter affidavit has
been filed on behalf of respondents no. 3
and 4. It is said that for selection and
appointment of Angan Bari Karyakartri,
procedure and other details were provided
in G.O. dated 16.12.2003 (Annexure CA2 to counter affidavit), which was
amended to some extent by G.O. dated
21.02.2007 (Annexure CA-3 to the
counter
affidavit).
In
accordance
therewith a selection was made after
advertising vacancies, on 31.01.2011, and
select list included the name of petitioner.
However, a complaint dated 02.04.2011
was received regarding income certificate
and, therefore, a selection committee,
while forwarding names of other selected
candidates of different centres, to District
Magistrate, made an endorsement and
kept petitioner's matter in abeyance.

5. The Child Development Project
Officer, Ghatampur directed Tehsildar to
make verification of income certificate of
petitioner. While the aforesaid inquiry
was still continuing, in the meantime , a
G.O. dated 04.09.2012 was issued by
State
Government
whereby
all
the
selections made before issuance of
aforesaid G.O. were cancelled, as a result
whereof, earlier selection was cancelled
and the respondents have proceeded to
make a fresh selection by issuing
impugned advertisement in the light of
G.O. dated 04.09.2012.

6. The short question up for
consideration in the matter is whether
G.O. dated 04.09.2012 can justifiably
cancel earlier selection proceedings and
direct for a fresh selection in respect of
earlier existing vacancies.

7. There are two aspects to be
considered in this regard. Firstly, what has
been said by G.O. dated 04.09.2012 with
respect to previous selection, which is
sought to be cancelled and secondly,
whether it is legally permissible or not.

8. It is not in dispute that G.O. dated
04.09.2012
has
been
issued
in
supersession of all existing Government
Orders. It lays down down procedure for
selection and appointment of Angan Bari
Karyakartri. A modified procedure has
been laid down in the aforesaid G.O.
From a bare reading, it however, does not
show that it has any retrospective effect,
inasmuch as, earlier existing G.Os. have
been superseded by the aforesaid G.O.
and from a bare reading, it is evident that
supersession is prospective.

9. Now the last paragraph which
relates to cancellation of selection reads
as under:

^^d`i;k bl 'kklukns'k dk dM+kbZ ls vuqikyu
lqfuf'pr djk;k tk; rFkk bl 'kklukns'k ds fuxZr
gksus ds i'pkr ;fn iwoZ esa dksbZ p;u dk;Zokgh
tuin esa izkjEHk dh x;h gks rks mls fujLr dj
fn;k tk;A leLr ftykf/kdkjhx.k ls ;g vis{kk dh
tkrh gS fd os vius dq'ky usr`Ro ,oa izHkkoh fu;a=.k
esa mDr dk;Zokgh dks iw.kZ mRrjnkf;Ro ds lkFk
lEikfnr djk;sxsA**

(emphasis added)

"Please get ensured strict compliance
of this Government Order and, if any
selection proceeding has already been
initiated in the District, after issuance of this
Government Order, the same shall be
cancelled. All the District Magistrates are
expected to get the aforesaid G.O.
implemented under their efficient guidance
and
effective
control
with
full
responsibility." (English translation by
Court)

10. What has been said therein is
that the selection proceedings in a district,
3 All] Smt. Gyan Wati Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1235
if has commenced earlier, after issuance
of the aforesaid G.O. dated 04.09.2012,
such selection proceedings shall be
cancelled.
Selection
procedure
is
prescribed in para 3 in the earlier G.O.
dated 16.12.2003, which lays down a
detailed
procedure
with
respect
to
selection, needs to be followed by
selection committee, constituted in para 4
thereof. Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari of
the
concerned
Block
under
Child
Development Project, would be the
Chairman of Selection Committee which
will have 5-6 members who are also
detailed in para 4 of the aforesaid G.O.
The selection committee shall prepare a
list of selected candidates and the
concerned Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari
shall
proceed
to
issue
letter
of
appointment on honorarium basis to the
selected persons. Para 3 provides that
there shall be no necessity of prior
approval of any senior officer, on
recommendation
made
by
Selection
Committee but a copy of select list shall
be forwarded to District Magistrate and
Chief Development Officer on the same
date on which it is prepared.

11. The subsequent G.O. dated
21.02.2007 which supposedly has made
some amendment in the procedure of
selection laid down in the G.O. dated
16.12.2003, only provides that selection
shall be finalised by concerned selection
committee as per G.O. dated 16.12.2003
but before issuing "appointment letter",
Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari shall obtain
approval of District Magistrate through
District Project Officer. Therefore, so far
as selection procedure is concerned, that
by itself does not require any prior
approval of District Magistrate, so as to
attain finality but that selection shall be
acted upon by issuing appointment letter
only after approval is obtained from
District Magistrate. In the present case,
entire selection procedure is over, as is
evident from respective pleadings and
what is awaited is only approval of
District Magistrate for appointment. It is
strange to find that a select list was
finalized by selection committee as long
back as on 26.3.2011 and thereafter for
the last more than 11⁄2 years, it continued
to await approval of District Magistrate. It
is true that the District Magistrate was
examining complaint made by one of
candidates,
not
selected,
who
had
complained about genuineness of income
certificate
of
petitioner,
a
selected
candidate, but the fact remains that this
inquiry continued to remain pending for
almost 11⁄2 years. In the meantime,
impugned G.O. has come and going
behind the aforesaid G.O., entire selection
has been cancelled so as to issue a fresh
advertisement, which is impugned in the
instant writ petition.

12. A Division Bench of this Court
while construing last paragraph, as quoted
above, of G.O. dated 04.09.2012, in Smt.
Sangeeta Yadav And Another vs. State
Of U.P. And Others (Special Appeal No.
49 of 2013 decided on 6.2.2013), held that
there is nothing in the aforesaid G.O. which
would apply to cancel selection, which has
been finalized, though no appointment has
been made. In my view, a careful reading of
G.O. dated 04.09.2012 makes it very clear
that intention of Government is only to
cancel such selection proceedings which
have just commenced before issuance of
G.O. dated 04.09.2012 but where selection
has been completed by selection committee
and only the matter relating to appointment
is pending before District Magistrate, for his
approval, such cases would not be covered
by the aforesaid G.O.
1236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. One of the reasons which can
justifiably be found in adopting the
aforesaid interpretation, is that, the
purpose of appointment of Angan Bari
Karyakartri would be frustrated if the
process of selection is kept pending for
years together and no actual appointment
is allowed to be made. After all selection
of Angan Bari Karyakartri is proceeded
with a basic objective and purpose for
which such appointment has been found
necessary. Process of selection is only a
method to find out a right person who has
to be given responsibility of executing the
basic plan/purpose/objective. If execution
of such plan etc. is made to await the very
selection for years to come, it shall
obviously frustrate its very purpose. No
doubt, there is stress on the words that
"selection process has commenced" but as
a matter of fact, the intention of State
Government is that it is with respect to
only those cases, where selection process
is at the stage of commencement, and not,
where the entire selection has completed
at the level of selection committee and a
select list has been communicated to
District Magistrate concerned. Only a
formal approval by District Magistrate is
pending and that too, for appointment,
which is not to be made by selection
committee. It is different aspect that
finding some procedural or otherwise
substantive irregularities in the selection,
the District Magistrate may decline to
approve selection and order for fresh
selection. That would be a different case
but otherwise, a selection which has
already commenced and completed, the
selection committee in that case would
become functus officio. Its role is over
after submission of select list to District
Magistrate. Such a select list, in my
considered view, would not be covered by
the last para of G.O. dated 04.09.2012.

14. Principles of interpretation
require that there should not be any
addition, subtraction or reduction of any
word, if the language of a provision is
simple and very clear, but interpreting a
provision, the Court must also take into
consideration the intention and purpose,
for which, the provision has been enacted.
Where the language of statute is capable
of more than one construction, purposive
interpretation shall be given to make the
scheme of the statute reasonable, rational and
functional, which would aid in achieving real
objective. I, therefore, find no hesitation in
holding that in the facts and circumstances of
present case, and the stage, where selection
has already reached, it would not be
governed by the last para of G.O. dated
04.09.2012. The District authorities have
completely
misdirected
themselves
in
assuming that selection in question shall
stand cancelled by G.O. dated 04.09.2012 so
as to justify fresh selection in accordance
with this new G.O.

15. There is another legal angle which
is directly involved in the matter. When a
vacancy occurs, general principle is that it
shall be filled in, according to the procedure
applicable at the time when the vacancy
occurred. In the present case, relevant facts
have been disclosed by respondents in the
counter affidavit, demonstrating that vacancy
occurred admittedly in July 2010. It has been
stated in para 4 of counter affidavit that the
petitioner Smt. Gyanwati was earlier selected
as Angan Bari Karyakartri on 30.10.2004.
She joined the aforesaid post on 06.11.2004
but subsequently she resigned from the said
post on 21.07.2010 which resignation was
accepted by competent authority on the same
day, i.e., 21.07.2010. At that time, the
procedure laid down vide G.Os. dated
16.12.2003 and 21.02.2007, was operating
and applicable. The respondents rightly,
3 All] Smt. Gyan Wati Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1237
therefore, proceeded to make selection and
appointment in accordance with the aforesaid
procedure.
Subsequent
G.O.
dated
04.09.2012, therefore, cannot be applied to
the vacancies which occurred earlier and the
same has to be filled, in accordance with the
procedure operating and applicable at the
time of occurrence of vacancy.

16. The Apex Court in the case of
Y.V.
Rangaiah
And
Ors.
vs
J.
Sreenivasa Rao And Ors. AIR 1983 SC
852 =1983 (1) SCALE 296 in para 9 it
was observed:

"9. Having heard the counsel for the
parties, we find no force in either of the
two contentions. Under the old rules a
panel had to be prepared every year in
September. Accordingly, a panel should
have been prepared in the year 1976 and
transfer or promotion to the post of SubRegister Grade II should have been made
out of that panel. In that event the
petitioners in the two representation
petitions who ranked higher than the
respondents Nos. 3 to 15 would not have
been deprived of their right of being
considered for promotion. The vacancies
which occurred prior to the amended rules
would be governed by the old rules and
not by the amended rules. It is admitted
by counsel for both the parties that
henceforth promotion to the post of SubRegistrar Grade II will be according to the
new rules on the zonal basis and not on
the State-wide basis and, therefore, there
was no question of challenging the new
rules. But the question is of filling the
vacancies that occurred prior to the
amended rules. We have not the slightest
doubt that the posts which fell vacant
prior to the amended rules would be
governed by the old rules and not by the
new rules." (emphasis added)

17. In A.A. Calton Vs. The
Director of Education and another,
AIR 1983 SC 1143 and P. Ganeshwar
Rao and others Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh and others, AIR 1988 SC
2068=1988 (Supple.) SCC 740 the same
view was reiterated. Again in B.L. Gupta
and another Vs. M.C.D., 1998 (9) SCC
223, the Apex Court in para 9 of the
judgment held as under:-

"When the statutory rules had been
framed in 1978, the vacancies had to be
filled only according to the said Rules.
The Rules of 1995 have been held to be
prospective by the High Court and in our
opinion this was the correct conclusion.
This being so, the question which arises is
whether the vacancies which had arises
earlier than 1995 can be filled as per the
1995 Rules. Our attention has been drawn
by Mr Mehta to a decision of this Court in
the case of N.T. Devin Katti Vs.
Karnataka Public Service Commission. In
that case after referring to the earlier
decisions in the cases of Y.V. Rangaiah
Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao, P. Ganeshwar Rao
Vs. State of A.P. and A.A. Calton Vs.
Director of Education it was held by this
Court that the vacancies which had
occurred prior to the amendment of the
Rules would be governed by the old Rules
and not by the amended Rules. Though
the High Court has referred to these
judgments, but for the reasons which are
not easily decipherable its applicability
was only restricted to 79 and not 171
vacancies, which admittedly existed. This
being the correct legal position, the High
Court
ought
to
have
directed
the
respondent to declare the results for 171
posts of Assistant Accountants and not 79
which it had done." (emphasis added)

18.

Following
the
aforesaid
decisions, a Division Bench of this Court
1238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(of which I was also a Member) took
similar view in Ram Prakash and others
Vs.
Farrukhabad
Gramin
Bank,
Farrukhabad and others (Writ Petition
No. 13347 of 2001, decided on 8th May,
2007).

19. In certain cases, an explanation
has been carved out where amendment in
the
rules,
providing
procedure
for
selection
has
been
made
with
retrospective
effect,
otherwise
the
amended procedure would be applicable
to the vacancies occurring after such
amendment and not to the earlier ones.

20. In the present case, learned
Standing Counsel could not dispute that
the Government Order in question is
prospective in nature and supersedes
existing erstwhile Government Orders
from the date of issuance of G.O. dated
04.09.2012 and not from an earlier date.
That being so, vacancies which occurred
earlier, i.e. before issuance of G.O. dated
04.09.2012, are liable to be filled in,
according to procedure laid down in the
previous Government Orders and not by
the subsequent G.O.

21. It is true that in the present case,
validity of last para of G.O. dated
04.09.2012 in so far as it covers certain
cases of earlier vacancies, has not been
challenged. But, that will not help the
respondents in any manner, for the reason
that this Court is not striking down the
last paragraph of G.O. dated 04.09.2012,
but a reasonable plain reading thereof and
also the legal exposition of law as
discussed above, is sufficient to make its
construction in the manner, that, it shall
operate only in those cases where
selection has not been finalized upto the
stage of preparation of select list and
submitted to the District Magistrate,
rendering the selection committee functus
officio. Approval of District Magistrate
would only make the way clear to Zila
Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari to proceed to
make
appointment
but
approval
of
District Magistrate as such, will not
empower selection committee to treat it as
continuing. Since this court is making a
purposive reasonable construction of the
G.O. dated 04.09.2012, and not striking it
down, the factum that the petitioner has
not challenged its validity, will be of no
help to the respondents.

22. Moreover, the fact remains that
the authorities themselves did not pass
any order, which they ought to have, in
order
to
avoid
any
confusion
or
misconception/misinterpretation,
in
respect of earlier selection, wherein the
petitioner was already selected.

23. Further in the writ petition the
reasons have been assigned by the
petitioner for not making any specific plea
for
challenging
the
G.O.
dated
04.09.2012, by stating in para 17 thereof
that G.O. dated 04.09.2012 has been held
contrary to the Central Government's
circular dated 03.06.2011 and holding that
the State Government cannot issue any
order which would be contrary to the
circular
formulated
by
the
Central
Government. Reference has been made of
a Division Bench decision of Lucknow
Bench of this Court, in Provincial Child
Development Project Officers' Welfare
Association Vs. State of U.P. and others
(Service Bench No. 9 of 2013), decided
on 07.01.2013. However, a careful
reading of Division Bench decision shows
that only a part of G.O. dated 04.09.2012
has been quashed, i.e., only to the extent
of reservation and not in its entirety.
3 All] Smt. Neetu Sood Vs. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Ors.
1239
Hence, this shall not help the petitioners
at all.

24. Be that as it may, since the law
is well settled that vacancies occurring
earlier should be filed in by the procedure
laid down under the statute, operating at
the time of occurrence of vacancies, G.O.
dated 04.09.2012, need not be quashed to
the extent it provides in the last para.
Considering prayer (b), the respondents
need be directed to consider the matter of
appointment on the post of Angan Bari
Karyakartri at village panchayat Sajeti,
Ghatampur Block, district Kanpur Nagar
in the light of selection made according to
procedure laid down, applicable at the
time of occurrence of vacancy, without
being influenced by any subsequent G.O.,
laying down different procedure or
method and the discussion made above.

25. In view of above discussion, the
writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned
advertisement
dated
04.01.2013 (Annexure-9) to the writ
petition,
published
by
District
Programming Officer, District Kanpur
Nagar, respondent no.3, insofar as it
pertains to the post of Angan Bari
Karyakartri, which is subject matter of
dispute in the present writ petition, is
hereby
quashed.
The
respondent
competent
authority
is
directed
to
consider the claim of petitioner for
appointment to the post of Angan Bari
Karyakartri in the light of her selection
made pursuant to advertisement made on
31.01.2011. However, it is made clear that
this
order
shall
not
preclude
the
competent authority to examine the
matter, with respect to genuineness of any
document relating to eligibility etc. of
petitioner and if anything is found wrong,
therein appropriate order may be passed
by it, giving reason(s), after observing
principles of natural justice.

26. The writ petition stands decided
accordingly in the manner as said above.

27. No costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.08.2013

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12796 of 2011

Smt. Neetu Sood

 ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Transport Appellate Tribunal &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri D.K. Agarwal, Sri Ashok Saxena
Sri Nitin Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri G.K. Singh
Sri V.K. Singh, Sri G.K. Malviya

Motor Vehicle Act 1988-Section 72-read
with M.V. Rule 1998, Rule 68- Application
for permit to play the bus in two different
states-rejection on ground not residing in
concern
state-held-no
such
statutory
requirement-tribunal committed mistake on
face of record itself-direction for fresh
consideration given.

Held: Para-18
The Court is of the view that the owner of
the vehicle may be a permanent resident of
a particular place, but, at the same time, he
can carry on his business at another place.
There is no bar under any law that a owner
of a vehicle, who is a permanent resident of
a particular place, cannot ply his vehicle in a