IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (2271 No. 3149 of2008 AF^ Petitioner Awtaar Singh Versus Respondents Regional Transport Authority 85 another -^ Post for Judgnient on | 7 day of Noveinber, 2008. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge /^.l 1.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 3149 of2008 Petitioner Awtaar Singh, 44 Yrs., S/o Kikkar Singh, Devendra Nagar, Raipur Versus Respondents 1. Regional Transport Authority, CG - Raipur 2. Kanker Roadways, By Mananging Partner - Pritam Singh Garcha, Civil Line, Raipur WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No. 1. Shri F. 8. Khare, Advocate for the respondent No.2. JU D^E M N T (Passed on this 17 day of November, 2008) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 12.6.2008 (Annexure P/l) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ( hereinafter referred to as "STAT' ) in Revision No. 107/2007 (Kanker Roadways Vs. Avtar Singh 85 another), whereby the stage carriage bus permif dated 26.4.2007 (Annexure P/4), granted to the petitioner to ply vehicle No. C.G. 04 E-7009 from Raipur to Jagdalpur via Dhamtari, Kanker, Kondagaon for the period 1.6.2007 to 31.5.2012, was set aside. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner applied for grant ofpermit on 12.3.2007 (Annexure P/2), wherein the vehicle No. CG 04 E-0399 was stated, for the route Raipur to Jagdalpur via ,Dhamtari, Kanker, Kondagaon. Before grant of permit, the petitioner made a request for substitution of the vehicle No. C.G. 04 E-0399 by a new vehicle No. C.G. 04 E-7009. AU the tt ^ 11j \.^c/ T:^^w^^. 1 necessary documents of new vehicle No. C.G. 04 E-7009 were also supplied. The prayer of the petitioner was allowed and the permit was granted by order dated 26.4.2007 (Annexure P/3), passed by the Regional Transport Authority on the vehicle No. C.G. 04 E-7009. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.2/objecter preferred a revision before the STAT on the ground that it was not permissible under the law to substitute the vehicle, as stated in the application, by another vehicle. Learned STAT after hearing the parties, relying on the provisions of Section 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988?) observed that, without permission of the transport authority, it is not permissible to substitute a vehicle on a stage carriage permit. It was further observred that the provisions of Section 69, 70, 73, 76, 77 and 80 may not be applicable to the facts of the present case. The vehicle has been mentioned in the application and the application has been considered on the basis of the particular vehicle, the substitution by new vehicle, without permission of the transport authority, is not permissible. Accordingly, the revision was allowed by the impugned order dated 12.6.2008 (Annexure P/l) and the permit (Annexure P/4), granted by the Regional Transport Authority by order dated 26.4.2007 (Annexure P/3) was rejected. Shri Raja Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that Section 70 of the Act, 1988 provides for making an application for stage carriage permit, containing the following particulars, namely :~ (a) the route or routes or the area or areas to which the application relates; (b) the type and seating capacity of each such vehicle; -^ (c) the minimum and maximum number of daily trips proposed to be provided and the time-table of the normal trips. (d) The number of vehicles intended to be kept in reser^e to maintain the servrice and to provide for special occasions; (e) The arrangements intended to be made for the housing, maintenance and repair of the vehicles, for the comfort and convenience of passengers and for the storage and safe custody of luggage; (f) Such other matters as may be prescribed. It is not necessary that a particular vehicle should be specified in the application. The petitioner had made a prayer for substitution of the vehicle, when the application for grant of stage carriage permit was pending consideration before the Regional Transport Authority. Thus, Section 83 which provides for permission of the Transport Authority after grant of permit is not attracted to the facts of the case. Therefore, the finding of the authority below is illegal and perverse. Per contra, Shri F. S. Khare, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 heavily relied on the applicability of the provisions of Section 83 of the Act, 1988 and would submit that that once the permit has been granted it is not permissible to substitute the vehicle without permission of the transport authority. Relying on the averments made in the return, Shri Shashank Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.l would submit that the order dated 26.4.2007 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Jagdalpur was legal and proper. ^^"\ i. /' 8. 10. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. It is apparent that the substitution of the vehicle was done before the permit was granted on 26.4.2007. The prayer for substitution of the vehicle by new vehicle was made before grant of permit and there was no opposition by the respondent No.2. Even othenvise, the respondent No.2 could not have objected on change of vehicle when the substituted vehicle is comparatively new. The timing remains the same only there is change of vehicle. There is no prejudice caused to the respondent No.2 as the objection with regard to the timing, which is most important factor in case of plying ofvehicle on a particular route by a stage carriage permit, is not affected, ifthe old vehicle is substituted by a new vehicle. On plain reading of Section 83 of the Act, 1988 it is evident that once the permit has been granted for a particular vehicle the same cannot be replaced by another vehicle without permission ofthe authority. Section 83 reads as under:- "83. Replacement of vehicles. -- The holder of a permit may, with the permission of the authority by which the permit was granted, replace any vehicle covered by the permit by any other vehicle ofthe same nature/' In the present case, before 26.4.2007 the petitioner was not a permit holder, as required for applicability of Section 83 of the Act, 1988 and the prayer was made prior to grant of the permit. Thus, the Regional Transport Authority, Jagdalpur has not committed any error. In case of grant of permit the paramount consideration is convenience of the passengers not of the permit ^, "^.. '^'^.•/' '^-^^c:-"- Thakur holder. The substitution by a new bus would be more convenient and comfortable to the passengers. A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Jadumani Pradhan Vs. Srinibash Sahu and others1 held that for grant of permit the paramount consideration is convenience of the traveling public and the business of the operator is only the means. 11, Hence, I hold that the findings and the order passed by the STAT is not tenable in law. Accordingly the impugned order dated 12.6.2008 (Annexure P/l) is set aside. The order dated 26.4.2007 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Jagdalpur is just, legal and proper and as such the same is affirmed. 12. The petition is accordingly allowed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge ' (AIR 1974 Orissa 202)