Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 386 (MP)

Mahendra Gupta v. State of M. P.

2014-04-04

B.D.RATHI, S.K.GANGELE

body2014
Judgment: B.D. Rathi, J. 1. Present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 13-6-2013 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior, in Appeal No. 41/2012 seeking following reliefs: "(i) Issuing a writ of certiorari or any other, suitable writ or order or direction for quashing the impugned orders dated 9-4-2012 and 13-6-2013 (Annexure-P/6 and P/9) passed by STA and STAT with further direction to grant stage carriage permit on the route in question for 2 S.T. daily for a period of 5 years to the petitioner. (ii) Passing any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) Costs of petition may also be awarded to the petitioner's society." Brief facts of the case are that one application was filed on 18-9-2011 by the applicant for regular Stage Carriage permit for the route Tikamgarh to Datia. The application was filed in accordance with Rule 72(1) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 along with necessary documents. The aforesaid route is an inter-state route and is a part of reciprocal agreement between the State of Madhya Pradesh and the State of Uttar Pradesh, Earlier, the route was the part of a Scheme. After the de-notification of the Scheme, the route was opened for private operators. The route was shown in Schedule A at Serial No. 12 as Tikamgarh to Datia via Orchha and Jhansi. In Column No. 5, the entire distance of the route was disclosed as 126 kms. permits which were to be issued were eight in number as shown in Column No. 9. It was mentioned in application by the applicant that vehicle No. MP07/MG/8282, Model 2011 having a capacity of 50+2 passengers was being proposed by him. Out of eight permits four were already granted. Therefore, applications of different operators were to be considered only for four permits for eight trips (to and fro). Different applications were filed by the 22 applicants. The applications were taken into consideration by the authority on 25-2-2012. Out of those applications, 12 applications were dismissed as not pressed. Out of eight permits four were already granted. Therefore, applications of different operators were to be considered only for four permits for eight trips (to and fro). Different applications were filed by the 22 applicants. The applications were taken into consideration by the authority on 25-2-2012. Out of those applications, 12 applications were dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter, final order was passed on 9-4-2012 (Annexure P-6) and for each of the applicants i.e. M/s. Orchha Travels, proprietor Miss Usha Jaiswal [respondent No. 3 and applicant No. 2], Shri Dhirendra Agrawal, Tikamgarh [respondent No. 5 and applicant No. 3], Shri Ghanshyam Motwani, Gwalior [respondent No. 4 and applicant No. 4] and Mahendra Singh Yadav [respondent No. 6 and applicant No. 12] one permit was granted for two trips (to and fro). Application of Mahendra Gupta [Petitioner and applicant No. 16] was dismissed on the ground that he has not mentioned the route ahead of Jhansi that from which route he will ply his motor vehicle and also on the ground that stand by vehicle which was proposed by the petitioner was of 2009 model and therefore, he was not entitled, to get permit in comparison to Shri Mahendra Singh Yadav [respondent No. 6 and applicant No. 12]. 2. Being dissatisfied by the order dated 9-4-2012 passed by the State Transport Authority, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior, The appeal No. 41/2012 was registered and the same was dismissed on 13-6-2013 (Annexure P-9) on the ground that respondents were better in position in comparison to the petitioner before the State Transport Authority. The entire documents and evidence available on record were properly appreciated by the authority. The cases of the respondents were better than the petitioner. It was also held by the learned Appellate Tribunal that the petitioner has not mentioned via routes in his application. Standby vehicle which was proposed by the petitioner was old in comparison to respondent No. 6. Petitioner is residing at Gwalior whereas the respondents are residing at Tikamgarh and Gwalior, therefore, they have better position in comparison to the petitioner. The appeal was also dismissed on the ground that the objectors who had filed their objections in regard to the application of the petitioner were not made party in the appeal. Thus, on the ground of non-joinder of the necessary parties also the appeal was dismissed. 3. The appeal was also dismissed on the ground that the objectors who had filed their objections in regard to the application of the petitioner were not made party in the appeal. Thus, on the ground of non-joinder of the necessary parties also the appeal was dismissed. 3. In the reply filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, the case of the petitioner was denied in toto and finally it was submitted that the impugned orders passed by the State Transport Authority and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal are well merited and thus no interference in them is called for. Apart that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by invoking supervisory jurisdiction of the high court even error of law cannot be corrected. 4. Similarly, respondents No. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 have also filed their respective returns separately and similar objections were raised by them. They have also prayed that the petition being devoid of merits should be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel Shri Dudawat drew attention of this Court towards the application filed by him as Annexure P-2. It was submitted by the learned counsel that model 2011 was mentioned and registration number of the vehicle was also mentioned in his application. It was also submitted by him that the entire route was also mentioned on the head of the application but even then his application was dismissed without applying mind. Impugned orders were passed illegally, against the rules and without following proper procedure. 6. It was submitted by learned counsel for respondents that order in question is well merited, passed legally and does not deserve interference. 7. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, both the impugned orders have been perused. 8. On perusal, it seems that the applications filed by respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 were found well merited. Their cases were also found in better position because they have written complete route including via routes. They have proposed new models of the vehicles and they have also possessed well experienced staff for plying the vehicles. Therefore, their applications were accepted by the State Transport Authority. 9. The case of the petitioner was compared with respondent No. 6 Mahendra Singh Yadav. It was found by the authority that the standby vehicle proposed by the petitioner was older than the vehicle so proposed by respondent No. 6. Therefore, their applications were accepted by the State Transport Authority. 9. The case of the petitioner was compared with respondent No. 6 Mahendra Singh Yadav. It was found by the authority that the standby vehicle proposed by the petitioner was older than the vehicle so proposed by respondent No. 6. Apart that in the application, via routes were not mentioned by the petitioner. 10. Either in the Motor Vehicles Rules or in the Act, there is no prescribed proforma or procedure to decide the applications filed for issuance of permits, therefore, all the applications have to be decided by the authority only on the ground that respondents/applicants who are in better position and in whose case balance of convenience is found present in favour of passengers. In that view, if we will examine the application filed by the present petitioner it is found that he has mentioned the route Tikamgarh to Datia via Orchha and Jhansi but he has not mentioned the extra via routes before Orchha and after Jhansi. Similarly, he has not mentioned the number and model of standby vehicle though in the application of respondent No. 6 Mahendra Singh Yadav has disclosed standby vehicle as MP32 P 557 model 2011 having capacity 50+2. 11. Therefore, in the absence of particular guidelines to decide the applications of the applicants, the method which was adopted by the State Transport Authority to decide the applications on the basis of merit and better position and also on the ground of balance of convenience was good enough. It is pertinent to mention here that though in gazette notification Annexure P-1, the proposed route was Tikamgarh to Datia via Orchha, Jhansi, shown at Serial No. 12 in Annexure A, remaining vias were not mentioned in this column but was specifically mentioned that the entire distance of the route between Tikamgarh to Datia via Orchha, Jhansi was 126 kms as mentioned in Column No. 5. 12. On perusal of the route of Tikamgarh to Datia via Baori, Digoda, Bamori, Prithvipur, Orchha, Jhansi and Datia, it appears to be equivalent to 126 kms but if we will go through Tikamgarh to Datia via Lidhora, Prithvipur, Niwadi, Pratapura and Jhansi then Datia then it, the distance will be more than 126 kms. Therefore, the route mentioned via Baori, Digoda, Prithvipur specifically by the respondents in their applications was in accordance in the notification. Therefore, the route mentioned via Baori, Digoda, Prithvipur specifically by the respondents in their applications was in accordance in the notification. In absence of this via route in the application of the present petitioner, it could not be said by the authority that he has applied for permanent permit of Tikamgarh to Datia route via from those villages the distance of which will be 126 kms as mentioned in the notification and also in the absence of that it could not be held that the proper time table was produced by the petitioner. 13. From abovementioned discussion, it is clear that the mandatory provision of Rule 72(1)(a) of M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, was not complied with by the petitioner. This is a case of stage carriage permit, therefore, the application form should have been filed in accordance with the form given in the format M-P-M-V-R-42 [S.C.P.A.]. Columns No. 5, 9 and 10 filled up by the petitioner were not in a better position in comparison to respondents. 14. Apart that this petition can be treated to be as filed only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for invoking the supervisory powers of this Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and others, reported in AIR 1984 SC 38 has held as under: "7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority" and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. In this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Art. 227, the High court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Art. 227, the High court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision." In the aforesaid premises, neither this Court can neither review nor re-appreciate the evidence of the case in hand. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders passed by the State Transport Authority as well as by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal are well merited and no interference is called for. Therefore, present petition being devoid of substance is hereby dismissed.