JUDGMENT Mr. Augustine George Masih, J. (Oral):- Through this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 29.11.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab dismissing the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 22.7.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab-respondent No.2 directing the petitioner to surrender permit Nos.38/23 to 25, 1077/SC-71 and 2033/SC-74 to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar with a further direction to this authority to issue regular permits to Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co.Ltd.Hoshiarpur-respondent No.3. 2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned orders dated 29.4.2012 (Annexure P-6) and 22.7.2011 (Annexure P- 5) cannot sustain as the directions issued therein are in violation of Sections 70, 72 and 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 1988 Act). Referring to Section 2(31), 2(40) and 2(47) of the 1988 Act, it is contended that permit can only be transferred if it is a stage carriage vehicle. In the absence of any stage carriage vehicle, no permit can be transferred. At present, petitioner is operating the routes for which the permits had been granted for the buses, which are owned by the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned orders cannot sustain. 3. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has contended that the permit is granted to a person and it is thereafter that the permit is operated through a stage carriage vehicle. Once the said permit is transferred in the name of the person by the authorities under the Motor Vehicle Act for operating the said permit, vehicle has to be shown to the competent authority and it is only thereafter that the permit becomes operational. It can even be done simultaneously or at a later stage after the permit has been issued. Referring to Section 83 of the 1988 Act, he contends that the vehicle can be replaced by the permit holder with the permission of the competent authority. In any case, he contends that present is a case where restoration of the permit has been ordered by the competent authority to the petitioner, who is the rightful owner in the light of the decree passed in its favour by the Civil Court. He accordingly contends that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed as the orders impugned in the same are in accordance with law. 4. He accordingly contends that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed as the orders impugned in the same are in accordance with law. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. 5. Present is a case where a fraud was played upon respondent No.3 by the petitioner in connivance with the Managing Director of respondent No.3, Shri Daljit Singh Latti. The story itself reveals that Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co.Ltd. Hoshiarpur (respondent No.3) was originally holding five permits and nine routes. Three Buses No.PAB 881, PUH 2789 and PUH 2251 were owned by respondent No.3, on which these five stage carriage permits were being run. On 20.3.1991, as per the orders of the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, these three Buses along with routes of above five stage carriage permits were transferred to the name of Ludhiana Motor Finance Co.Pvt.Ltd.Ludhiana (petitioner) in the light of the judgment and decree passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Ludhiana on 10.11.1990. Respondent No.3 challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Ludhiana in Civil Suit No.120 of 16.8.1994, alleging that the said judgment and decree was obtained by playing fraud upon the respondent company as the previous Managing Director Shri Daljit Singh Latti had joined hands with the petitioner, i.e., the transferee company without any power or authority to enter into reference of arbitration and he did so in exercise of his individual capacity. 6. After trial, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana decided all the issues framed in the suit in favour of respondent No.3, decreeing the suit with costs vide order dated 12.10.2001. It was held that the order dated 10.11.1990 and the decree dated 10.11.1990 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Ludhiana, in arbitration application No.6/90, decided on 10.11.1990 have been obtained by the petitioner company, i.e., Ludhiana Motor Finance Co.Pvt.Ltd., Ludhiana by fraud and a direction, therefore, was issued to the petitioner company to hand over route permits No.38/23 to 25, 1077/SC-71 and 2233/SC-74, as mentioned in the arbitration award within two months of the passing of the said decree. Apart from that, preliminary decree of rendition of accounts was also passed in favour of respondent No.3 and against the petitioner, details of which are not relevant and, therefore, are not being referred to here. Apart from that, preliminary decree of rendition of accounts was also passed in favour of respondent No.3 and against the petitioner, details of which are not relevant and, therefore, are not being referred to here. The said judgment was challenged by Shri Daljit Singh Latti by filing Civil Appeal No.2 of 2.1.2002. This appeal was dismissed by the Addl.District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 21.8.2004. Regular Second Appeal preferred by the petitioner, i.e., RSA No.3076 of 2004 was dismissed by this Court vide a judgment dated 4.3.2005. 7. During the pendency of the civil suit and the appeals, the petitioner company, in the meanwhile, got variation of conditions of these permits by way of extension of operational area. Execution application was filed by respondent No.3 for execution of the decree dated 12.10.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana to the extent of transfer of permits. On objections preferred by the petitioner company, the same was upheld vide order dated 20.5.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana by holding that the decree qua return of permits was inexecutable on the ground that the Buses, on which the permits were operational, have been rendered unusable and have been replaced by the Buses purchased by the petitioner company and thereafter fresh permits have been obtained on these Buses in the year 1996-2001, 2001- 2006 and then 2006-2011. Respondent No.3 preferred Civil Revision No.5074 of 2009 in the High Court, which was decided in favour of respondent No.3 vide order dated 6.5.2010, wherein a statement was given by the counsel for the petitioner that he would hand over the route permits to respondent No.3. The order passed by this Court reads as follows:- “Learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 states that respondents no.1 and 2 undertake to return route permits in question as per judgment and decree dated 12.10.2001, Annexure P/1 to the petitioner. In view of said undertaking, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the revision petition be disposed of accordingly. In view of the aforesaid, impugned order Annexure P/12 passed by the executing court is set aside and respondents no.1 and 2 are directed to return route permits in question to the petitioner in the executing court on 20.5.2010. Parties shall appear before the executing court on the date fixed for doing needful. Revision petition stands disposed of accordingly”. 8. In view of the aforesaid, impugned order Annexure P/12 passed by the executing court is set aside and respondents no.1 and 2 are directed to return route permits in question to the petitioner in the executing court on 20.5.2010. Parties shall appear before the executing court on the date fixed for doing needful. Revision petition stands disposed of accordingly”. 8. In the light of the order passed by this Court, parties appeared before the Executing Court and the route permits were handed over to respondent No.3. 9. In the light of the orders passed by the Civil Court, Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co.Pvt.Ltd. (respondent No.3) submitted its papers before the Transport Authority for transferring the permits in its name, which were obtained by the petitioner company during the pendency of the litigation. A meeting dated 22.7.2011 was held, where on considering the submissions made by the parties, permit Nos.38/23-25, 1077/SC/71 and 2033/SC/74 were transferred from the name of Ludhiana Motor Finance Co.Pvt.Ltd. (petitioner) to the name of Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co.Pvt.Ltd. (respondent No.3) as per directions of the Civil Court. In the said order, it was also mentioned that during the litigation if there has been any change in the conditions of these permits, they would be transferred in the name of Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co.Pvt.Ltd. 10. Against this order, petitioner company preferred a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Authority, Punjab, wherein this order was upheld by holding that a fraud had been played upon respondent No.3 company and after a prolonged litigation, now the time has come for the rightful owner to enjoy the fruits of the order of the Civil Court and the Transport Authorities have rightly passed the order of transferring the permits in favour of respondent No.3 company. 11. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the permit can only be transferred if there is a stage carriage vehicle cannot ipso-facto be accepted as the permit is granted to the permit holder, but obviously with an authorisation, authorising the use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle. This is apparent from the definition of “permit” as provided in Section 3(31) of the Act. This is apparent from the definition of “permit” as provided in Section 3(31) of the Act. It is not in dispute that respondent No.3 has large number of stage carriage vehicles and, therefore, after the transfer of the permits in the name of the permit holder, i.e., respondent No.3, can get the number of the stage carriage vehicle, authorising the use of the motor vehicle as a transport vehicle. If the assertion of the counsel for the petitioner is accepted, it would amount to another fraud upon the Court this time. It also started on the basis of a fraud committed upon respondent No.3 by the petitioner by getting five stage carriage permits along with its Buses transferred on 23.3.1991. As per orders passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, which had given effect to the judgment and decree dated 10.11.1990 passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Ludhiana in an arbitration case, judgment and decree has been set-aside as the same was based upon fraud and misrepresentation committed by the petitioner in connivance with the previous Managing Director of respondent No.3. A benefit, which has been taken by a party on the basis of fraud, that too through a Court cannot be a source for defeating the subsequent judgment, holding the same to be a fraud and denying the rightful owner of the benefit and fruit of the order. In S.P.Changalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Versus Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs., 1994(1) SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and nonest in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree by the first court or by the highest court has to be treated as a nullity by every Court, whether superior or inferior and can be challenged in any Court even in collateral proceedings. A person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court and cannot be granted any benefit and his claim has to be thrown out summarily at any stage of the litigation. The effect thereof is that the advantage gained by such a party through a fraud played upon the court has to be nullified and the rightful person should be held entitled to his claim along with consequential benefits. 12. The effect thereof is that the advantage gained by such a party through a fraud played upon the court has to be nullified and the rightful person should be held entitled to his claim along with consequential benefits. 12. Order dated 22.7.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab-respondent No.2 directing the petitioner to surrender permit Nos.38/23 to 25, 1077/SC-71 and 2033/SC-74 to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar with further direction to the Regional Transport Authority to issue regular permits to respondent No.3 is in accordance with law. The dismissal of the revision petition vide order dated 22.7.2011 (Annexure P-5) by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab is, therefore, upheld. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar shall, however, satisfy itself as per the provisions of the Act and the statutory rules prior to issuing the route permits to respondent No.3 with regard to stage carriage vehicles with respondent No.3. 13. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands dismissed. --------0.B.S.0------------