K:>"^ IN THE HIGHCOURT OFCHHATTISGARH. AT BILASPUR. W.P. No.—^-3-6— /2000. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Petitioner Respondents Raqueeb Ahmed, S/o Shri S. Jafer, aged about 39 years, Bus Operator, Resident of Sadar Road, Ambikapur, Distt. SurgujafC.G.) VERSUS. 1. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Motimahal, Gwalior (M.P.) 2. Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur. ^3. Banshilal Sahu S/o Shri Sukhlal Sahu, Bus Operator, R/o Village Prem Nagar, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (Now Korea) Chhattisgarh. Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitutionof India. HIGH COURT OF CHA'rTISGARH, BIL&SPUR (5.B. HON'BLE SHRI R.S.GARG.J.) WRIT PETITION N0.136/2000 Raqueeb Ahmad Vs Ihe State Transport. Appeilate Tribunal and two others. Shrl B.P. Gupta, leamed counsel for petitioner. Dr. N.K. Sbukla, lesrned Dy.A.G. for respondents nos. 1 & 2. Shri B.K. Rawet, learned counsel for respondent no.3. O RD E R Learned counsel for the peti-fcioner submits that the respondent no.3 did not challenge the grant of tbe permit on the ground that portion of the route was falling within the scheme, but in fact the respondent no.3 challenged the issue of pennit on the ground ef the timings. Referring to certain portion of the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, be submits tha-t if the timings was the only question raised before the S-fcate Transport AppellE-te Tribunal, then the respondent- S.T.A.T., had no autfeo- rity under the law to decide any otber question whicb was not r^ised before the Authority. 2!; Shri Rawat, learned cpunsel for respondent no.3 submits t.bat tbe respondent no.3 did not challenge 'the grant on the ground that poi-tion of tbe route was falling under the scheme,. according to him, as the tiaings granted in favour of the petitioner were: prej-Bdicial to the tim.i.ngs granted in favour of respondent no.3, he had an authority to chaliyage the perreit and the t-iHiiiags which bave been aliot-ked •!|,,:i.;nt-l— ;>.>:-SIS'^:l:.~wtB ff-i • • ^, *• . in favour of the petitloner. He submlts that the Authority was absolutely jy.st.tfieQ In granting ha.s revAsion. 3) Shrl Gupta, .learned counsel for tte pet-i.tloner submlts that the respondent no.3 has also obta-tned permit for tbe sarae rou-be anfl if tte respondent ao.3 can operate the perm.Lt on the very same route desplte a bar as found by the S.T.A.T., then th.e sald bar cou-ld not be used against tbe present petitlOBer. He sabmlts that so far as tlm-tngs are concemed, the S.T.A.T., wh.i.le decidlng the -Lssue no.3, has held in favour of tiie petitioner. 4) I have heard the part-tes and have gone through tbe records. 5) It'is not disputed before me that the route^ for wb-i.ch permit has been granted i.n favour of thB petltioner, the r.espondent no.3 hadl also ebtained^tbe permlt. The fact tbat nuraber of operate-; rs are operatiag on .the very same route. was not disputed before as. If that 4,s so, the S.T.A.T.. was not just-Lfied in rejectlng the penai.t sl.mply on the ground tbat the rointe on which ' the perm.Lt was granted In favour of the petJ-t-Loner, was ander the control of the M.P.S.R.T.C. Till date. the M.P.S.R.T.C., has not raised any objectlon to the grant of such permJ-ts. The M.P.S.R.T.C., or the State Koad alweys Transport Corporatlon sbalJ./be'at liberty to make an applacat.ion either feforethe concerned R.T.A-, or : before any otber competent autbority tor recall/cance.lla-] tion of the permJ.ts on the $rouad that fche roates are covered under tte scheme. ^& tW M 6) So far as the qttestJ.on of timings are concbnieS, und.i.spately the State Trans'port Appellate Trij3ttna-l| has j • • held An favQur of the pst.ttioner. It .Ls a recordea finding that wlth an intervalof balf an Ji^Elt;he|;fcuse^, ""fc.3 1 rsnr •••?•< are plyj.ng on the said route. If that be so, the respondsnt no.3:cannot be allowed to say tbat because of operation of the permit on this route he would suffer loss. In any case. In view of the liberaUsed policy as contained under Section 80 Qf the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, the prime consi- decation is the public convealence^not the competi- t-l-on. 7) Tfae order passed by tte State Transport Appeliate Tr.i.bunal, As set aside and that of R.T.A., is restored. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge -^sesssE' 3/4/2001