IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 482 (MS) OF 2006 1. Rajendra Singh, S/o Dev Raj, R/o 93, Nehrunagar, Roorkee, Haridwar. 2. Sri Jaipall Singh, S/o Nar Singh, R/o 405/34, Civil Lines, Roorkee, Haridwar. …………………Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 2. The Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun. 3. M/s Adarsh Transport Co. Cooperative Society, 91-Kanwali Road, Dehradun through Secretary Shiv Kumar Gupta. ………Respondents. Mr. L.P. Naithani, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Sri Atul Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Learned Sanding Counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2. Dated: 03.05.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri L.P. Naithani Sr. Advocate, assisted by Sri Atul Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents. By the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 7th April, 2006 passed by the respondent no. 1 State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Uttaranchal, Dehradun. Further prayer has been made for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to implement the order-dated 07.04.2006 (Annexure No. 9 & 10 to the writ petition). 2 Briefly stated, the petitioner has made an application for grant of the permit for the route Kulri-Laksar-Roorkee, which comes within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun. The petitioners have submitted that they have been operating on the route in question since before 15th April, 2005 on temporary permit by driving the Vehicle No. U.P. 14-A- 8821 and U.P. 11D 319. They have moved an application to the Regional Transport Authority that they may be permitted to ply the Vehicle as they have been operating since 2001 on temporary permit and prayed that since the route in question falls in the plain area, therefore, the vehicle can be of 20 years in accordance with the resolution dated 8th March, 1994 passed by the State Transport Authority. However, the State Transport Authority has not permitted the vehicle to ply which is twenty years old, but has permitted to ply for 10 years old only. On 27.06.2005, an order was passed permitting the petitioner to ply the vehicle up to 20 years’ old. Respondent no. 3, however, filed an appeal against the said order. The appellate authority vide order dated 7th April, 2006 allowed the appeal partly and set aside the permit of the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide resolution dated 9th March, 1994, the petitioners have been permitted to ply 20 years old vehicle up to 20 years in respect of plane area. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that under Section 68(4) the said notification is bound and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to ply their vehicles up to 20 years in a plane area. This point has not been considered by the authority concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 55483 of 2002 Vijay 3 Kumar Singh Vs. Secretary State Transport Lucknow U.P. and others, which was passed by the division bench of the Allahabad High Court on 23.04.2003. Relevant observations are quoted below:- “The grievances of the petitioner is that the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, is not granting Temporary permit to the petitioner vide order dated 26.8.2002 in view of the fact that his vehicle is more than 9 years old. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited out attention to the order of the State Transport Authority dated 9-3-1994 which has permitted stage Carriage upto twenty years old to operate in plain area. In view of the said order or the State Transport Authority we allowed the petitioner, quash the impugned order dated 26-8-2002 and direct the Regional Transport Authority to consider the petitioners application for temporary permit in the light of the direction of the State Transport Authority dated 9-3-1994.” In view of the aforesaid submission, the matter is sent back to the appellate authority for considering afresh in the light of the notification dated 9th March, 1994 and decide it within a period of six seeks from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order. Subject to the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 03.05.2006 Rathour