Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 39 (MP)

Mahendra Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2014-01-08

G.D.SAXENA, S.K.GANGELE

body2014
ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 26th October, 2013 (Annexure P1) passed by the respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner submitted an application on 17-11-2005 for grant of Stage Carriage Permit before the Transport Authority. On the aforesaid application, Case No.356/STA/2005 was registered. The petitioner had also filed an application on 14-08-2008. The petitioner was granted a permanent permit on an interstate route Gwalior to Jhansi two trips daily vide order dated 08-10-2008. The permit was valid up to 31/01/2014. The respondent No.3 challenged the aforesaid order of grant of permit by filing a revision before the respondent No.2. The transport authority vide impugned order quashed the grant of permit on the ground that the petitioner submitted application for grant of permit on 17-11-2005 on an interstate route from Gwalior to Jhansi. The aforesaid route was came in to existence in accordance with the agreement between two States [State of M.P. & State of U.P.] vide agreement dated 21/11/2006. Hence, the permit could not be granted to the petitioner for a route which was not in existence when the application was submitted. 3. It is an admitted fact that an agreement was entered into between State of M.P. and State of U.P. Copy of the agreement has been filed as Annexure P8, dated 21st November, 2006 and it was published in the extraordinary Gazette. Gwalior-Jhansi via Dabra, Datia interstate route has been mentioned at Serial No.47. At serial No.47 of the Appendix persists the agreement. It is also a fact that the petitioner submitted an application for grant of permanent permit on 17-11-2005 for the same route. At that time, in accordance with the reciprocal agreement and in accordance with the number of permits and number of trips, the petitioner could not be granted permanent permit. However, after subsequent reciprocal agreement, the number of permits and number of trips have been increased. The route on which the petitioner was granted permanent permit was not in existence prior to enter the reciprocal agreement i. e. 21-11-2006. 4. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashis Kumar Jain v. The M.P. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior & two Ors. The route on which the petitioner was granted permanent permit was not in existence prior to enter the reciprocal agreement i. e. 21-11-2006. 4. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashis Kumar Jain v. The M.P. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior & two Ors. [2002(2) MPJR 190] has held that formulation of route under Section 68(3)(ca) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [in short 'the Act, 1988') is a condition precedent before filing an application for State Carriage Permit under Section 70 of the Act, 1988. 5. In the present case, before the reciprocal agreement dated 21-11-2006 when the petitioner filed an application for grant of permit the route was not available because at that time, the number of permits and number of trips were limited. Admittedly, the petitioner granted permanent permit by the authority on the basis of route and trips mentioned in the reciprocal agreement dated 21-11-2006. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal has rightly allowed the revision and quashed the order of grant of permanent permit. The permit was valid up to 31/01/2014. The petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application for grant of permanent permit and the authority may consider the same in accordance with law if the route is available for grant of permit in accordance with reciprocal agreement. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Order accordingly.