t 1 y ;; @ 05I601/ BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No.’7(3] /2006 I PETITIONER , M/s.Manish Travels, through Proprietor Manish Kumar Jain, S / o. Late Shri Bhagchand Jain, Aged about 38 years, R/o. New Bus Stand, Durg (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS f 1. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.). / 2. Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh at Raipur. /3. Secretary, R.T.A. Jagdalpur (C.G.). 1 4; Dubey Travels, Through Partner Brajesh Dubey, Bus Stand, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Kv HIGH COURT OF J—UDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPLTR WRIT PETITION (C) NO. ’7190 OF 2006 M/ s. Paya1 Travels PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDEI‘J‘TS : State Transport Appellate T1 1bunal Qalym and others WRIT PETITION (Cl NO. 7191' OF 2&706 PETITIONER : M/ s. Manish Travels VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur and others Order post for 3\— 1-2007 Sd/- ‘ Dhirendra Mishra Judge HIGH COURT OF JU'DICA’I‘URE CHEATTISGARH : 'BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 7190 OF 2005 P-‘TITIONER : M/ s‘ Payal Trave1s VERSUS RES?0NDENTS 2 State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur aml others WRIT PETITION [CI NO. 7191 OF 2006 PETITIONER z M / s. Manish Travels VERSUS RESPONDENTS': State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur and others PRESENT: Shri BK. Rawat, counsel for the petitioner. Shri JD. Bajpai, counsel for the respondent No. 41 Caveater. ORDER Dhirendra Mishra. J. Since common question of law is involved in both these petitions, they are being decided by this common order. However, for the purpose of disposing of these petitions, the facts of W.P.(C) No. 71901'2006 are being dealt with. This petition is directed against the order of Annexnre P-5 dated 20—11-2006 passed in Revision No. 163/2006 by respondent No. l/ State Trad‘éport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur (for short, hereinafter referred to as, “STATW, . V gr V ,i, i Jlx whereby regular stag6 carriage permit granted in favour of the petitioner by Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh Vide order dated ‘25—'2«'2005 has been set aside. ‘2. Briefly stated ‘the facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for grant of stage carriagepermit in the route Durg to Bajladila before Regional Transport Authority. It was stated by the petitioner that. a regular ‘ permit No. 133f’2004 has been issued in his favour for the Same route, however since there is a coliusion in the timings, therefore, a fresh regular permit be issued with partial modification. The respondent No. 4 objected to the issuance of regular permit on the ground that he has also appiied for permit for the same timings. However his objection was rejected onthe ground that his appiication for issuance of regular permit has already been rejected and, therefore, his objection has become infructuous and accordingly regular permit as prayed by the petitioner 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 regular permit No. 133/”2004, thenVonly he shall be eligibie to get a fresh regular 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 allowed the revision and cancelled the regular permit No. 197/ 2005 issued in favour of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel 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 ‘Mithilesh Garg. etc. —v- Union o'f India and othersvetc. reported in AIR. 1992 SC 443. He further submits that STAT has misconstrued the conditions No. 4 and 5 imposed bv the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated ‘25- 2-2005 as new permit No. 19‘7f'2005 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, learned counsel for 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 Regional Transport Authority ought to have decided both the applications together. Reliance is placed on the decision in the matter of i ._.«,v-u-'~.r—.:- Yakub Sarif -v- State Trans art A eilate Tribunal and others reported in AIR 2006 CHH. 46. He further submits that from perusal of the impugled order, it is clear that the Regional Transport Authority issued permit to the petitioner on 25-2-2005. The petitioner was p1ying a bus on the same route vide permit No. 133j‘2004, however by the fresh application his purpose was Change of timings, but instead of filing an application for change of timings in the already effective regular permitund’er Section 7‘2{'2)(xxii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, application for new regular 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 3—2—2006 without surrendering the old permit as the old permit 133/2004 was surrendered only on 28-2-2006. Though there is no evidence available. on record, in fact as to when permit No. 183/ 2004 was surrendered, on the other hand, permit No. 1331-2004 was cancelled on 18—5—2005 by the STAT . 5. l have heard learned counsel for the parties. l have perused the impugned order. b. i The first question for consideration is whether the revision at the instance of respondent No. 4 was competent before the STAT or not. 1n themww t .L g , l i l i , i. f! i. /‘\ u- {Supra}, challcnge was madc to liberalization of the privata sector operations in the road transport fleld under Section 80 and other provisions of Motor Vehicles Act,’ 1988 by the existing operators on the ground that they have been adversely aifected 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 . completelv 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 down 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 4‘7 (3) was to be rejected summarily. However, considering the convenience and benefit of traveling public and further considering the public interest at iarge, 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 l l l (9] applied for permit fer the same route and for the same timing. The petitioner had already a 1‘egu1ar permit No. 133/2004 in his favour and' by the application for new permit, he in fact had applied for change of timing which was not permissible under the law. In anv 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. 8. It 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 object against grant of 'permit to any applicant and to that extent, the existing operators do not have any locus standi to either prefer objection or to flie revision. However, in the instant case, the objection was not from anv 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. 133/2004 for the same route possibly for a dih‘erent timing. In the matter of Yakub (supra), this Court had an occasion to deal with an identical situation where two applicants made applications before the Road f L 63 l\ Transport Authority for grant of permit on the same route, however, the application of one applicant was alioWed and it was stated by the STAT that the application for other applicant 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 maintainabie and on this ground, the impugled order cannot be faulted. 9. From careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it i s observed that the reg'ular permit was granted to the petitioner on 25—2‘2005. A reguiar permit Not 133] 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 30 clays 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 petitioner. STAT has observed that the permit was issued to the petitioner on 3~2e2006 i.e. almost , , one vear after the order dated 2:) 2 200:) was passed inere 1s no ev1dence as to when the order dated 2o 2 200s was served upon the petltloner. Intlmatlon of cancellation of regular pertmt No 133/2004 was given on A8 2 2006 1 e after lssuance of new penmt Winch ls contran’ to the condltlon of the o1der dated 20 2 2005 It has also been observed that the pet1t10ner has‘ not been able to file any proof‘as to when and Where he surrendered the permit No. ‘ 133/2004. Thus considering the reasons assigled by the STAT, this Court 1s of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity committed by the Court below which calls for any interference under Article 2’27 of the Constitution of India. 10. The petitions being devoid of substance are dismissed. However no order as to costs. Sdl- Dhirendra Mishra 1‘ ‘ Judge E