Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 17:34:00 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No. 27131 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Santosh Kumar Samantara …. Petitioner(s) -versus- Transport Commissioner-cum- Chairman, State Transport Authority, Odisha, Cuttack & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr. S. K. Dalai, Adv. Mr. R. N. Mishra, Adv. (for O.P.2) Mr. Pravakar Beehra, SC (for RTO) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-23.06.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -18.07.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a direction to quash the order dated 18.10.2024 and the Notification dated 21.10.24, specifically challenging Slot No.73 as the same is alleged to be in contravention of this Court’s direction for the issuance of a Temporary Page 1 of 10
Legal Reasoning
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 17:34:00 I. (i) Permit (TP) for the petitioner’s vehicle on the Bhubaneswar to Patasanipur route. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Petitioner, as the registered owner of Vehicle No. OD-05-BL-6899, applied for a Temporary Permit for the route Bhubaneswar to Patasanipur under Category-C, Slot No. 73 (vacant slot) in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Petitioner had submitted the relevant documentation for the Stage Carriage Permit on 31.05.2023. (ii) A Committee Meeting was held on 14.07.2023 to consider objections from stakeholders, during which marks were awarded to the applications. The Petitioner applied for a new Temporary Permit from Patasanipur to Bhubaneswar in Slot No. 73, but the objections raised by the Petitioner regarding another applicant’s permit were not addressed immediately. (iii) The Petitioner previously filed a writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 14777 of 2024), challenging the delay in granting the Temporary Permit. This
Decision
Court disposed of the petition on 05.08.2024, directing the issuance of the Temporary Permit to the Petitioner in line with the order dated 03.01.2024 passed by the Secretary, STA and approved by the Chairman, STA. (iv) Despite the order of this Court, the Temporary Permit was issued on 18.10.2024, nearly two months after the Court’s direction. The permit Page 2 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 17:34:00 granted was for 28 days on the route Chandbali to Bhubaneswar, which was not the route requested by the Petitioner. (v) The Petitioner made efforts to resolve the issue by approaching Opposite Party No. 3 on 08.08.2024, submitting a copy of the Court’s order in an attempt to expedite the issuance of the Temporary Permit, but the process was further delayed. (vi) A Notification dated 21.10.2024 issued by the Opposite Parties listed Slot No. 73, but the Petitioner’s requested route was not included. Instead, the Notification accommodated other routes, leading the Petitioner to claim that the authorities deliberately avoided considering the requested route. (vii) The Opposite Parties argue that the Temporary Permit granted to the Petitioner was explicitly for the route Chandbali to Bhubaneswar via Bhadrak and Chandikhol, as stated in the order dated 03.01.2024. They assert that the Bhubaneswar to Patasanipur route was never part of the approved permit. (viii) The Opposite Parties have clarified that Slot 73 is earmarked for Category C routes, covering Bhubaneswar to Bhadrakh, and that extending the route beyond Bhadrakh, including to Patasanipur, is not permissible under the rationalized timetable. (ix) Following the Notification on 21.10.2024, two applications for the permanent permit for the route were received by the Opposite Parties. These applications were placed before the STA for consideration on 05.11.2024. Page 3 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 17:34:00 II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The main contention is that the authorities failed to adhere to the High Court’s order issued on 05.08.2024, directing the immediate issuance of the TP for the Bhubaneswar to Patasanipur route. Instead, the authorities granted a 28-day TP for an alternate route (Chandbali to Bhubaneswar), which was not part of the Petitioner’s application. (ii) The Petitioner alleges that the authorities, particularly the Secretary of STA, have acted in an arbitrary, mala fide, and unreasonable manner to deliberately avoid the Petitioner’s application. This is seen as an effort to accommodate other applicants, with a view to undermine the legal rights of the Petitioner in securing the vacant slot for the route applied for. (iii) The Petitioner highlights that, despite the recommendation of the Chairman, STA (dtd. 04.01.2024), which was intended to favour the Petitioner’s application, the Opposite Parties ignored it, thereby creating confusion and inconvenience. This apparent contradiction in official decisions raises serious concerns regarding the deliberate misinterpretation of judicial orders. (iv) The actions of the authorities, as pointed out by the petitioner, are contrary to statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and settled principles of law. The Petitioner claims that the authorities have misused their discretion to manipulate the issuance of temporary permits to benefit others in contravention of established legal norms. Page 4 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 17:34:00 (v) Given the delay in implementing the Court’s order, the non-issuance of TP as directed by the STA, and the continued non-compliance by the authorities, the Petitioner seeks urgent intervention from this Court to quash the impugned order and notification and direct the authorities to issue the temporary permit as per the original request and statutory requirements. (vi) The Petitioner contends that, in light of the malafide actions and delay by the authorities, there is no alternative, effective remedy available to the Petitioner to seek relief, making the intervention of the Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution absolutely necessary. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The Opposite Parties submit that the writ petition is misconceived as the Petitioner’s contentions are without merit and do not warrant consideration by the Court. They argue that the writ petition is an attempt to circumvent established legal processes. (ii) The Opposite Parties contend that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides alternative remedies under Section 89 and Section 90, which provide an adequate and efficacious legal recourse for the Petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is premature, and the Petitioner should have availed of these statutory remedies instead of approaching the Court directly. (iii) The Opposite Parties assert that the Petitioner’s sole claim for the permit, which is based on the order dated 03.01.2024, clearly specifies Page 5 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 17:34:00 the route Chandbali to Bhubaneswar via Bhadrak and Chandikhol. As per the clear wording of the order, the Petitioner is entitled to a Temporary Permit only on this route, and thus, any claim for the Bhubaneswar to Patasanipur route is invalid and without basis. (iv) The Opposite Parties argue that the route applied for by the Petitioner, extending beyond Bhadrakh to Patasanipur, is not permissible under the rationalization of time table. Slot No. 73 is specifically designated for the Category C route between Bhubaneswar and Bhadrakh, and extending beyond this point goes against the approved route rationalization. (v) The Opposite Parties emphasize that they have fully complied with the High Court’s order dated 05.08.2024, which directed the issuance of the Temporary Permit in accordance with the Secretary, STA’s order dated 03.01.2024. They argue that the route issued, Chandbali to Bhubaneswar via Bhadrak and Chandikhol, aligns with the directions issued by the Court and serves the public interest. (vi) The Opposite Parties also highlight that following the advertisement for permanent permits as per Notification dated 21.10.2024, two applications were received and have been properly placed before the STA for consideration on 05.11.2024. This is in line with the legal process for granting permanent permits, and it is further contended that the current application of the petitioner does not impact this ongoing procedure. (vii) The Opposite Parties assert that Slot No. 73 has been legally notified and is part of the public interest in the ongoing notification. Page 6 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 17:34:00 Interference in the process at this stage would disrupt the public interest and the lawful procedure that is being followed by the authorities. (viii) In conclusion, the Opposite Parties contend that the averments and contentions raised by the Petitioner in the writ petition merit no consideration and should be dismissed. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 6. At the outset, this Court must address the objection raised by the Opposite Parties regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. It is contended that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides an alternative statutory remedy to the Petitioner, namely, an appeal under Section 89 and a revision under Section 90 of the Act, to challenge any grievance relating to the grant or refusal of a permit. The law is well settled that when an efficacious alternative remedy is available, the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked. Exceptions to this rule are limited to scenarios such as violation of natural justice, infringement of fundamental rights, lack of jurisdiction, or a clear case of malice in law. 7. There is plethora of judicial precedents affirming this stance. The discretionary jurisdiction of Article 226 has been aptly discussed by Page 7 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2025 17:34:00 the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal1 wherein it was held as follows: “15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case, Titaghur Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.” 8. Similarly, in Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C.2, the Supreme Court reiterated that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not absolute but has to be exercised judiciously in the given facts of a case and in accordance with law. The normal rule is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be entertained if alternative statutory remedies are available, except in cases falling within the well-defined exception.