Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1291 (MP)

Nirbhay Singh v. State of M. P.

2014-10-09

ROHIT ARYA, S.K.GANGELE

body2014
JUDGMENT : 1. They are heard. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22nd April, 2014 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) Gwalior in Revision No. 48/2013. 3. Respondent No. 3 challenged grant of permanent permit in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner applied for grant of stage carriage permit on the route Bercha to Sagar. He submitted an application in this regard in statutory form in accordance with the provisions of Rule 72(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. Respondent No. 3 objected in regard to grant of permit. That was rejected. Against the aforesaid order, a revision petition was filed by respondent No. 3 before the STAT. The STAT allowed the revision petition on the ground that the petitioner did not furnish route map and certificate of stage wise distance along with the application because there are various routes available from Bercha to Sagar. The Regional Transport Authority (RTA) wrongly mentioned the fact that the petitioner submitted the route map and stage wise distance certificate. The STAT allowed the revision petition after holding that the petitioner did not submit the application in the required form because he did not submit details of the vehicles he had, Tax NOC, stage wise distance certificate and route map, hence, there was violation of Rule 72(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (for brevity, the "Rules"). 4. Rule 72(3) of the Rules prescribes application for grant of stage carriage permit. 4. Rule 72(3) of the Rules prescribes application for grant of stage carriage permit. The Rule reads thus : 72(3) The application for grant of stage carriage permit or reserved stage carriage permit as required under sub-section (1) of section 70 shall be accompanied by the following documents, namely: (a) an authentic route map along with certified distance between various stages and certificate regarding motor ability of the route from the departments which have control over such road; (b) certificate from Registering Authority containing make, model and seating capacity of the vehicles owned by the applicant at the time of making the application; (c) details of the stage carriage and reserved stage carriage permits already held by the applicant; (d) no dues certificate issued by the Regional Transport Officer concerned; (e) declaration duly certified by an officer of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation authorised by the Managing Director about the portion and distance of the route covered by any nationalization scheme and (f) any other information as may be required by the Transport Authority." 5. As per Rule 72(3) (a) it is necessary to furnish an authentic route map along with certified distance between various stages and the details of the stage carriage and reserved stage permits. The application is to be submitted in statutory form in accordance with Rule 72(1)(a). In accordance with Clause 5 of the aforesaid form the applicant has to submit the route or the routes of the area for which the permit is desired sketch map of the route showing the stages in between the terminal of the route. Clause 10 further prescribes requirement to furnish number of vehicles intended to be kept in reserve to maintain the service. It thus reads: "The number of vehicles intended to be kept in reserve to maintain the service and to provide for special occasion on the route applied for." 6. Petitioner has filed copy of the application form submitted by him before the RTA along with this writ petition as Annexure P/3. From perusal of the aforesaid form, it is clear that against clause (5) the route map has not been filed nor the certificate mentioning the stage wise distance has been filed. Similarly, number of the vehicles kept in reserve also has not been submitted as required under clause 10 of the application form. From perusal of the aforesaid form, it is clear that against clause (5) the route map has not been filed nor the certificate mentioning the stage wise distance has been filed. Similarly, number of the vehicles kept in reserve also has not been submitted as required under clause 10 of the application form. The deficiency also could not be cured at the time of passing of the order. This Court has held that it is obligatory and mandatory on the part of the applicant to cure the deficiency as required in accordance with the provisions of Rule 72(3) of the Rules and it is also necessary to give number of the vehicle as required in the statutory form. Though said deficiency could be cured at the time of passing of the order, yet this has not been done. 7. This Court in the case of Padam Chand Gupta Vs. State Transport Authority, : 2014(1) MPLJ 124] has held as under after considering the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in regard to fulfilment of the qualification required under Rule 72(3) of the Rules: "18. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Esskey Roadways (Firm) Vs. Anandhakrishnan Bus Service, reported in : AIR 1994 SC 71 has held as under in regard to consideration of relevant date on which the respective claims of the candidates have to be considered for grant of permit:- "3. Another circumstance arose in Dhani Devi Vs. Sant Bihari case was that when one of the applicants before the consideration died and his L.Rs. were brought on record. When it was questioned, this Court held that the L.Rs. are entitled to be considered as inhering the estate of the deceased applicant for grant of permit. In A.S. Jalauddin Vs. Balasubramania Bus Service (P) Ltd., the question arose that whether the applicant who secured the residential qualification by establishing a branch office at one of the terminus of the route would be considered eligible as on the date of the consideration. This Court held that he is entitled. In view of these consideration, it must be held that the date of consideration is the relevant date for the purpose of considering the eligibility to grant the required marks under section 46 of Act 4 of 1939. This Court held that he is entitled. In view of these consideration, it must be held that the date of consideration is the relevant date for the purpose of considering the eligibility to grant the required marks under section 46 of Act 4 of 1939. This law being in operation from 1970, we do not think that it requires any reconsideration by this Court by a larger Bench. Accordingly, we hold that the date of consideration have to be considered for award of the marks for grant of permit. It is made clear that this declaration of law is confined to and peculiar of the statutory operation under section 46 of Act 5 of 1958." 19. It is clear from the above judgment that an applicant has to fulfil qualification required in the rule and in regard to availability of the vehicle at the time of passing of the order by the Regional Transport Authority." 8. Hence, the application of the petitioner was not complete. In such circumstances, the STAT has rightly quashed the permit granted in favour of the petitioner because it was in contravention of the statutory rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service Warora, : AIR 1970 SC 1926 However, that judgment is distinguishable on facts. 9. The STAT has not committed any error in allowing the revision filed by respondent No. 3 and we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is hereby dismissed. 11. No order as to costs.