BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OE CHHATTISGARH v AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No.'7l9© /2006 wM/sPayal Travels, through x Partner Swaroop Jain, Son of Ghisulal Jain, Aged about 45 years, R/o. Sadar Bazar, Durg (C.G.). PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS V11. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh at Raipur. Secretary, R.T.A. Jagdalpur (C.G.). r4. ' Dubey Travels, Through Partner Brajesh Dubey, Bus Stand, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R " £3 1116K C URT OF JUDECAT'URE CHI-iA'T"Ti$ ‘ARH : BI'LASPUP. WRIT P—‘Ti’T‘K7N (Ci KO. 719?) OF 2006 \H , PE'TTTIO ""R : M/ s. Paval 'T‘raveis ‘ "‘RSU" RE$PON”DE1‘J'TS : State Transport Appeilate Tribunal, Dn§vu1v L\a4t/Lu mil nry‘l n utflwLS 1 an WRIT PETI’TION (C) N0. 71§i OF 20(36 TITIUNER : M / s. Manish Traveis P ‘RSUS RESPONDENTS : Stata Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur and others Order post for Sl— 1-2007 Sd/— Dhirendra Mishra l Judge l . @@ HIGH ‘UUKI‘ OF JUEICATURE unliATTi§GARH : BILASPUR WKTT‘ PETITION (Ci N0. '?19§ OF 2056 WRIT PETiTiON (’C‘l KO. ? 1§1 OF 2(306 FE'HTIONEK ‘ : M / s. Manish Traveis RESPO 3 ‘NTS : State Transport Appeilate Tribunal, Raipur emd Others PRESENT: snri BK. Rawat, counsel for the petitioner Shri JD. BaJpal, eounsel for the respondent No. 4 I Caveater. y GREER Thirendra ivii‘shra. J. Since common question of law is involved in both these petitions, they are being decided 13V this common order. However, for the purpose of disposing of these petitions, the facts of W.P.(C) No. 719012006 are being dealt with. This petition is directed against the order of Annexure 115 dated 20—11—2006 passed in Revision No. 165/2006 by respondent 'No. if $tate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur (for short, hereinafter referred to‘ as “STAT” , P-‘TiTiON‘R : M f s. Paval Travels vJamsus _ _ - - RESPON‘DENTS : State Transport Appeiiata Tribunai, Raipur and cth€rs g whereby reguiar stage carriage permit granted in favour of the petitioner by Regionai TTansport Authoritv, Chhattisgarh vide order dated ’25-’22005 has been set 831(16 . '2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for grant of stage carriage permit in the route Durg to Bailadiia before Regionai Transport Authority. It waS stated by the petitioner that a reguiar permit No. 133/2004 has been issued in his favour for the. same route, however since there is a collusion in the timings, therefore, a fresh regular permit be issued with partiai modification. The respondent No. 4 objected to the issuance of reguiar permit on the g‘ound that he has also applied for permit for the same timings. However his objection was rejected on the ground that his application for issuance of regular permit has already been reiected and, therefore, his objection has become infructuous and accordingly regular permit as prayed by thepetitioner was granted vide Annexure P—l with certain conditions. Apart from other conditions, a condition was imposed that the petitioner shall obtain permit within 3O days from the date of receipt of notice of the order granting permit failing which the permit shall automatically stand cancelled and further that the petitioner shall surrender the regplar permit No. 133/2004, then onlV he shal1 be eiigible to get a fresh reguiar permit. Being aggrieved by the above order, the respondent No. 4 preferred a revision under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order of Annexure P— 1. The STAT aliowed the revision and canceiied the regular permit No. 197f‘2005 issued in favour of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that the revision preferred by the respondent No. 4 before the STAT was incompetent as the respondent No. 4 had no locus standi to file the revision as he was not an aggrieved person. Reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Mithiiesit Garg. etc. —-u- Union of india and others etc. reported in AfR i§92 SC‘ 443. He further submits that "TA‘T‘ has misconstrued the conditions No. 4 and 5 imposed by the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 25— 2—2005 as new permit N0. 197112005 issued to the petitioner was effective from 1-3-2006, the date from which the old permit No. 133] 2004 was already surrendered. 4. On the other hand, iearned counsel tor the respondent No. 4 submits that the application for permit preferred by the respondent No. 4 was for the same timings and the same route, therefore, the Regionai Transport Authority ought to have decided both the applications together. Reliance is’placed on the decision in the matter of 1g @ Yakub Sarif' -v- State Transport Appeiiate Tribunai and“ athers reverted in ATR 2006 CifH. 46. He further submits that from perusai of the impugned order, it is clear that the Regional Transport Authority issued permit to the petitioner on 25-2-2005. The petitioner was plying a bus on the same route vide permit No. 13312004, however by the fresh appiication his purpose was change of timings, but \ instead of filing an appiication for Change of timings in the aireadv effective regular permit under Section 72(2)('Xxii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, application for new reguiar permit was filed, which is not permitted under the scheme EVen otherwise, the conditions imposed in the permit have been violated and permit was issued on 8—2—2006 Without surrendering the old permit as the old permit No. i33j2004 was surrendered oniv on 28-2—2006. Though there is no evidence available 0n record, in fact as to when permit N0. 133f‘2004 was surrendered, on the other hand, permit No. 13312004 was cancelled on 18—5-2005 bV the STA‘ 1‘. 5. l have heard learned counsel for the parties. l have perused the impugied order. 6. The first question for consideration is whether the revision at the instance of respondent No. 4 was competent before the STAT or not in the matter of iW—it’hiiesh Gara u: (supra), Challenge was made to liberalization of the privaté sector operations in the road transport field under Section 80 and other provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the existing operators on the ground that they have been adversely affected in exercise of their rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India Hon’ble The Supreme Court comparing the provisions of the Act and old Act, observed that the Parliament in its wisdom as completely effaced the features of the old Act contained in Chapter IV which made a provision against applications for grant of permits and it was further provided that representations made were to be decided in a quasi judicial manner keeping in View the criteria laid clown in Section 47(1) and also keeping in View the limit fixed under Section 47(3) of the old Act. An application for grant of permit beyond the limited number fixed under Section 47(3) was to be rejected summarily. However, considering the convenience and benefit of traveling public and further considering the public interest at large, liberalization in the procedure for grant of permit under the Act has been upheld where intending operators can get permit for asking irrespective of the number of operators already in the filed. 7. However, in the present case, the grievance of the respondent No. 4 before the STAT was that he had also applied for permit for the same route and for the same timing. The petitioner had already a reguiar permit No. 133/2004 in his favour and bV the application for new permit, he in fact. had applied for change of timing which was not permisaibie under the law. In any case, the RTA ought to have considered both the applications together but the application of the petitioner was allowed and the objection of the respondent No. 4 was brushed aside with an observation that his application for permit has been rejected, and therefore the objection is of no consequence. S. lt is true that after coming into force of the new Act, granting of permit for stage carriage permit has been liberalized and it is not open to the existing operators to obiect against grant of permit to any applicant and to that extent, the existing operators do not have any locus stamii to either prefer objection or to file revision. However, in the instant case, the objection was not from any existing operator but the objection was from the respondent No. 4 who had applied for issuance of regular permit for the same timings and in fact the petitioner was existing operator having a permit No. i33f'2004 for the same route possibly for a different timing. In the matter of Yakub (supra), this Court had an occasion to deal with an identical situation where two applicants made applications befom the Road Transport Authority for grant of permit on the same route, however, the appiication of one applicant was allowed and it was stated by the STAT that the appiication for other appiicant was taken for consideration and after consideration his application was rejected. In these circumstances, this Court held that at least both the applications should have been clubbed together and thereafter it ought to have been decided by a common order. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revision preferred before the STAT was maintainable and on this ground, the impugned order cannot be faulted. 9‘ observed that the regular permit was granted to the petitioner on 25—2—2005. A regular permit No. 138/2005 for the same route was already issued to the petitioner and he was plying his bus in the said route on the strength of the earlier permit. The order was passed on 25-2—2005 with a condition that he shall obtain the permit within 3O days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the permit shall stand automatically cancelled and the new permit shall be issued only after permit No. 133/2004 is surrendered by the petitionen STAT has observed that the permit was issued to the petitioner on 3-12—2006 i.e. almost l From careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it i s one year after the order dated 25—2-2005 was passed. There ls no ev1dence as to when the order dated 25-2-2005 was served upon the petitioner. Intimation of canceiiation of reguiar permit N0. 133/2004 was given on 28-2-2006 ‘1.e. after issuance of new permit which is contrary to the condition of the order dated 25-‘2~2005. It has also been observed that the petitioner has not. been able to iiie anV proof as to when and where he surrendered the permit N0. 133/2004. Thus considering the reasons assigned by the STAT, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no megahty or infirmity committed by the Court below which cails for any interference under Articie 227 of the Constitution of india. 7V J i0. The petitions being devoid of substance are dismissed. However no order as to costs. - i Sd/- i i Dhirendra Mishra i i Judge