^A^^ 1|Ef^sd l;.^^-"3 I£LI!!iJS^«SOUJ£^£^J!xtIaiIUM-M»»^ WRET PHTITION N0«<4^-0^ OF 2005. WRir_ .PIT_ITIQ!i,UN3EJi AKTICLB 22^/227, OF.CXNST.ZTUTION OF INDI^. PHfITIONER -^ ^^!; ^p""" -••:,^yy •y^y'' /' I^ygHM KFfeN, ..•;'"'ft^'^ s/° Karamat Ullah Khan, -^€'^i^~..- Aged 28 years, 'Q/o Korea, JV^NENDmG^.RH (CG). Ra^oman's VEISUS 1, STME TmNSPOBT APPELIM5 TRIBUML^ STME CF CHPftrTISG^rH, m.IFUH(CG) 2, HEGION^L TH^SPOHT ^yjri-DRITY 7 CI-IH&rTISGMH, miPUR. " f 3. SB3RETARY, R.T A., BILASPUH, ,...1 Qistric-fc BI1ASPUR (CG) 4. Ba^ANT BC 'S^YS, Through Partner arvind Kurnar A^grawal^ Seth Basant Lal Marg, Ambikapur, (CG)» DETAILS OF P£TXT^ION 50 *il4loi^^Tq»"" \3wi -Oiqirt«,U>TH'<1<1<?, Rlrtl^^ ; GO, ••a»«BBaB« ••"••)!••••/•••••••• • «h• rf»i^200 ^^ 3n^$T<I)TR^J<b <:CT3TT^^T?CTW "3IT^5T 'q^P((jc|[^6|<£;) ?;T^TW;Hf^T 3H^$T 20-10-2005 sKort Mr. B.K. Rawat, counsel Mr. Yashwant Singh respondents No.2 & 3. Mr. B.P. Gupta, counsel] By this writ petition unc|er the petitioner has questioned order dated 8-9-2005 passecj Chhattisgarh, Raipur (for whereby learned STAT allowir|g canceiled permit No.1814/B/O^ the Regiona! Transport Auth< dated 27-9-2003 (Annexure F|- Khongapani to Ambikapur and| Brief facts leading to ft| herein flled an application for and back vide his appiicatic|n substance ofthe said applicat|on 2003 and hearing was fixed namely, Fazal Haq, Mohd. F^r Pratap Singh filed their object|ons of respondent No.4 herein of respondent No.4 was c!asl|ii herein. Respondent No.4 Ambikapur to Manendragarh.) hours from Ambikapur, 16:| W8|S cpiqIcxTll +11+1oT^'f^^cl ^Rl^l^ ^a.ri^rsn^ST for the petitioner. Thakur, Govt. Advocate for the State/ |for respondent No.4. Article 226/227 of the Constitution of tndia, |the legality, propriety and correctness of the by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, 'the STAT'), in Revision No.360/2004, the revision filed by respondent No.4 herein, granted in favour of the petitioner herein by |rity, Raipur (for short 'the RTA'), vide order 1-1) for piying vehicie between the route from Iback. |ing of this writ petition are that the petitioner farant of permit from Manendragarh to Raigarh dated 10-4-2003 (Annexure R-4/2). The was published on the notice board on 28-8- 3-9-2003 in which as many as four persons Irooq, respondent No.4 herein, & one Yogesh and the matter was heard. The objection regarding timing, as the timing of the permit |ing with the timing asked for by the petitsoner already the permit hoider for the route from Starting time of respondent No.4 was 13:10 10 hours from Baikunthpur, and arrival at an SP/FS/2005-20,000 51 v3w|<-qiqio*l,tPTrl<<1<l<?, Rlrtl^-l^ -._ co,^p. ^mcCT^^^"""-"t"--^-"^"7f-""-^^oo^ 3TI^$T q'^P (^Gl|^6|<^) 3TT^^T<RT.R4icb ^pnw^^TPFwp ^a^ ?T?[TS^^rfl^T 3TI^$T -^ hoilirs fr4>m Manendragarh was 18:30 petitioner hereinwas 13:10 fre 19:00 amval at Manendragarh. petitioner herein moved anoth< 4/3) asking for the permit obser^ed that In view of the ne^ objection raised by the four petitioner herein is aiready plyir on a temporary permit, no ta^ permit is granted in his favour. respondent No.4 herein fiied allowed the revision vide the imt)i ! have heard learned Mr. B.K. Rawat, leamecl the permit was granted to th^ Ambikapur, therefore, respond^ such, he had no locus to fiie th| favour of the petitioner. Other| on which the permit was grantejd by him, therefore, on this gr4 challenge the grant of permit | admitted that on the day i.e. favour of the petitioner from| formutated by the State Gover} Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'tj im^ugned coUnsel <pi^Io<nvi +ii+ioV^(^»-(£l<<Ri^i^ ^arf^T 311^^1 on », whereas the timing asked for by the \m Ambikapur, 16:10 from Baikunthpur and [However, after the arguments were over, the |r appiication dated 11-9-2003 (Annexure R- Khongapani to Ambikapur. The RTA ^ proposed route by the petitioner herein, the Itransporters stands removed and as the |g the vehiciefrom Khongapani to Ambikapur ^ is outstanding against him, therefore, the ^ggrieved by the said order dated 27-9-2003, |a revision before the STAT, Raipur, who order. for the parties. counsei for the petitioner argued that since petitioner on a new route Khongapani to ent No.4 herein can have no grievance, as revision against the order granting permit in point raised by Mr. Rawat is that the vehicle to respondent No.4 herein was already so!d >und aiso respondent No.4 had no right to in favour of the petitioner. He very frankly 27-9-2003 when the permit was granted in Khongapani to Ambikapur, no route was iment under Section 68 (3) (ca) of the Motor ie Act'), but, thereafter, vide notjfication dated SP/FS/2005-20,000 g 52 *fI^<5T a><TT^ vd-ori '-qi'qirt-il, U>'^1<<-l'll<o, RrtK-iy^ ; .......y...^..^.G.4../^200^ 3TT^^T<15Tf^7W ^H3TT^^Ta?WP ^^:, 3n^5T q^l?(<j<i|fj<s|^) ?;^ITW^Tf8?rW^^T _:<2._ w 14In June, 2004, the route has| remitted to the STAT or the RT^ On the other hand, Mr. No.4 submitted that as the p4 overiapping with the permit Ambikapur and only the area v| No.4 was Khongapani to M^i IVianendragarh, particularly, Ann| the petitioner as well as was affecting the interest of the revision. He further taken by the RTA on 11-9-21 arguments were already hear objection was granted to granted in favour ofthe petition| Having heard learned impugned orders and record. In this connection, it w< relevant provisions of the Act. says that "route" means a !in^ may be traverwd by a moto^ Section 70 of the Act provide^ permit. Sub-section (1) of Secp "an application for a permit ir| stage carriage shall, as far ^ cpj^[o<ni ^i+ioY^'fe^ xFji^i^ ^3rf^T3TT^$T Ibeen formulated, as such, the matter can be ^ to consider the case of the petitioner afresh. |B.P. Gupta, learned counsei for respondent |rmit granted in favour of the petitioner was ^f respondent No.4 from Manendragarh to I'hich was not within the permit of respondent ^nendragarh and in between Ambikapur to •(bikapur & Baikunthpur, timing ofthe permit of respojndent No.4 herein was same, therefore, that re|spondent No.4, as such, he had tocus to fite submjtted that the application Annexure R-4/3 was 503 on the back of respondent No.4. The on 3-9-2003 and no opportunity to raise resftondent No.4 regarding the timing of permit ^r herein. sounsel for the parties, 1 have perused the >uld be profitable to have a glance over the Section 2 (38) of the Act defines "route" which of travel which specifies the highway which vehicle between one terminus and another. for moving an application for stage carriage ion 70 envisages among other conditions that respect of a stage carrlage or as a reserve s may be, contain the foitowing particuiars, SP/FS/2005-20,000 53 \3-oT|^iqic»q,yTyi^41<i, RriW^ Hi*irtia?Tf^"" •"^' ""'' • • • •^•^•^-^" ••• ^F^^OO^ 3TT^$T q3q? (ij|c|i^6|«^) 3n^^T^rR^i<b HW3TT^$Tw+ti<p :Y B^l^T^R^rf^TOT^^T .4 nameiy, (a) the route or routes relates". Section 72 of the Act is| which envisages that "subject to the Transport Author under Section 7D accordance wit modifications as permit: Provjded in respect of anl application". Section 80 of the Ac| granting permits. Sub-sect appiication for a permit of any| (2) of Section 80 envisages ordinarily refuse to grant an time under this Act. Section 68 (3) (ca) of t| the State Government and it for plying stage carriages". Perusal ofthe above pi| without formulation of route (ca) ofthe Act, no transport 4' Admittedly, in this case, no 2003 when the permit was said route was formulated onl <p^lo<TITi +ii+iol'^'fc^cl >cRi<(<c;t<< ^3lRiH3TI^?T or the area or areas to which the application |with regard to grant of stage carriage permits Irovisions of Section 71, a Regional |ty may. on an application made to it », grant a stage carriage permit in the application or with such |t deems frt or refuse to grant such a |hat no such permit shall be granted route or area not specified in the defines the procedure in appiying for and |on (1) of Section 80 envisages that "an kind may be made at any time". Sub-section (hat "a Regional Transport Authority shali not (pplication for permit of any kind made at any ie Act is with regard to formulation of route by ^nvisages that "Government to formuiate routes lovisions makes it clear that in the first instance the State Government under Section 68 (3) tuthority is entitled to grant any kind of permit. rbute was formulated till the date i.e. on 27-9- gt-anted in favour of the petitioner herein. The vide notification dated 14-6-2CX34. Therefore, SP/FS/2005-20,000 1 54 ^EST•r«i«irt«, U>TTII<I<|<?,RriN-iy^ r^^. .......^.•.X?....^.5?P..^ ^HrtlsPTT^ ....—......v..............^..^..^. 3T1^?T CRq? (<^f^5) ^200^ 3n^$Tcf5TK^i<b ^TT3TT^$T9RW ">r'i ?T?tTW^rf^T 3TI^?T ^_^_ the order granting permit in dated 27-9-2003 was illegal. Now, coming to the poji grant permit in favour of the 11-9-2003, It is admitted posit permit from Manendragarh substance of the same was hearing in respect of that app| four transporters including r^ regarding timing. However, v| time of hearing that the some substance, which mayl hearing was conduded on another apptication surreptiti^ Raigarh-Manendragarh to application to any of the ofl petitioner in a manner showirjg permit is granted on that bas| such permit. But unfortunate| remained unsatisfied and starting timing of the permit| respondent No.4 herein is s^n 16:10 hours, and the oniy No.4 herein which was 18:3(t the petitioner herein was 19:( STAT. flavour of the petitioner by the RTA vide order <pj<tIo<TITi +ii*ioT^rf«^11<Ri^i^ ^ail^rsn^sT |nt that whether the RTA was within its right to |)etitioner on the basis of the application dated ;|on that the petitioner herein applied forgrant of ^o Raigarh vide appiication dated 10-4-2003, p^btished on the notice board on 28-8-2003, and lcation was held on 3-9-2003 against which the tspondent No.4 herein raised their objections 1/hen the petitioner herein came to know at the obje^tions raised by respondent No.4 herein is of likely to jeopardize his claim, and when the ^-9-2003, thereafter, on 11-9-2003 he moved >usly before the RTA changing the route from Kh|ongapani-Ambikapur. Without hearing on that |>jectors, the RTA was pieased to oblige the that if the renewed application is allowed and |s, then nobody wilt have any grievance against jy for the petjtioner herein, respondent No.4 still mcjved revision before the STAT showing that the Igranted in favour of the petitioner herein and >4irie from Ambikapur -13:10 hours, Baikunthpur iifference was that of arrival time of respondent at Manendragarh, whereas, the arrival time of )0. The revision was ultimately allowed by the SP/FS/2005-20,000 *1.1fl^TS?»TTq» ^S^ '-q|<tlc)q^ ^Tll^^KS, Rlrtl^^ _»_ v^/ v ^ ^ ^FfZOO^ 3Tr^$T^rf^rfcj? ^8T^^Ta?HN? 3Tr^$T q3R? (^cli^d^) ?^TWr^(gd 3TI^T ^- corrles It is true that under the has been liberalized and the 57 of the old Act has been dor principle of natural justice more than one operator, then operator already plying his and in the interest ofthegen< granting permit, the RTA or y the timing factor. in this case, as has was already plying his bus timings of permit granted in f^ was same up to Baikunthpur| herein was bound to be affect^ be said to be in consonancel 'route', which has been defin^d one terminus and another", a| applied for. The other appfi argument was for a new roup ultimately came to be formul^t datedl 4th June, 2004. Section 70(1) (a)ofth^ the stage carriage permit is area or areas to which the already moved an app!icatior|. Act, which envisages that no | cPJ<4lo41lT1 +11+1C)T^rI«l<l^Rrt^l^ ^3rf^T3II^?T ^mended provisions of the Act, grant of permit r^quirement of the provisions of Sections 47 & n^ away with, but on the question oftiming, the into play, as if the same timlng is fixed for >uch timing is likely to effect the interest of the v^iicte, it may also not the heatthy competition »e|'al public aiso. Therefore, to this extent whiie te STAT is required to take into consideration be|en mentioned above, respondent No.4 herein b^tween Ambikapur & Manendragarh, and the ^vour of the petitioner herein from Ambikapur Therefore, the interest of respondent No.4 |d. The procedure adopted by the RTA cannot with the provisions of the Act, as the word under Section 2 (38) of the Act, is "between hd for whieh the petitioner herein had already ication filed by him aftsr conclusion of the |e i.e. from Khongapani to Ambikapur, which ted by the State Gov^mment vide notification Act also envisages thatthe party applying for (equired to mention the route or routes or the abplication relates, for which the petitipner had As per the proviso to Section 72 (1)0f the >uch permit shal! be granted in respect of any SP/FS/2005-20,000 56 ^Svf '-qi^ioo, u>-al1<+<i<», Rlrtl<<-iy'< ^i*iic6ia?m^ •—•—" •••••'••••••*•••'•'•• ^ • • «^h • ^»y^200^ OT^^TWR-licb ^CT 3TI^$TW^ i<P ^\/ 3TT^$T qaR?(4c|i^<si^) ?;RTTWr^rfg?f3?1^$T -^ route or area not specified in grant permit based on the new published and parties were ne\ and the route mentioned in th( appiication on which the argur also the action of the RTA wa; Act, as theinterest of respond< ofthe permit granted in favour| respondent No.4 has locus to Now, coming to the po| has already been sold by res move revision, Mr. Rawat d< Annexure R-4/4 issued in favo< bearing registration No.CG-15^Zy in favour of Arun Kumar Lath| Based on these two documer|ts herein has transferred the vehi petitioner ought to have filec vehicle by obtaining copies vehide number on the two pe( been transferred. Moreover, Mr. B.P. Gi|l entitled to change the vehic| transport authority and for tha^ No.4 has already purchased s) before the RTA for change of fie <pi<<[<o<Ttvi +ii+io)T^'f^^' KRi^i^ ^3rf^T3n1$T jthe application, the RTA was not entitled to |application, the substance ofwhich was never ^er put to notice for hearing on that application, new application was different from the earlier fients were heard. Therefore, on this ground not in consonance with the provisions of the \nt No.4 was affected on account of the timing |of the petitioner herein. In the circumstances, rtiove revision before the STAT. jnt raised by Mr. B.K. Rawat that the vehicle tpondent No.4, therefore, he has no right to et/eloped this argument based on the permit ir of respondent No.4 in respect ofthe vehicle i^ZA-0787, and the permit Annexure P-3 issued |in respect of the same vehicte on 8-9-2003. it is not safe to hold that respondent No.4 i|=le. In order to substantiate this argument, the other documents regarding the transfer of 1-om the RTA Office. By merely mentioning I'mits, it cannot be treated that the vehicle has ^a7 Ipta argued that the permit holder is always |e on the permit with the permission of the purpose for the route in question, respondent new bus, and papers have already been filed vehicle. The permit, which is existing in the SP/FS/2005-20,000 57 *<1?1P)1^<TT^ \d-cc|r«|«lrt<l,U>Ti1<<-l<l<?, Roi'<iy<< _._ u^' •^"•/'^t2oo^ 3IT^^T<CTRVli<p ?CT3H^$Ta?1R^ Som^ 3n^$T q^q? (ljcli^6l<£{) name of respondent No.4 herei^i was within his right to challen^e interest of respondent No.4 i| respondent No.4. For the foregoing reascj petitioner has no case to intefl STAT and this writ petitjon i^ dismissed, and it is hereby disr|iissed <pi<ilo<n^ +ii<ioT^?fcL<Sl ^KJI^-CK ^srf^rsn^ST has not so far been cancelled, therefore, he any action of the RTA, which affects the \i respect bf the route granted in favour of |ns, 1 am of the considered opinion that the ^ere with the revisional order passed by the devoid of any merit, same is liable to be Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge