Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 493 (MP)

Vijay Bajaj v. State of M. P.

2014-05-01

B.D.RATHI, S.K.GANGELE

body2014
ORDER Rathi, J: 1. Present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petition on being aggrieved by the order dated 6.2.2014 as well as 27.4.2013 as per Annexures P/1 and P/4 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior, in Revision No.218/13 and by the Regional Transport Authority, Sagar, i.e. respondent No.2, herein, praying for following reliefs : “(i) Issuing a writ of certiorari or any suitable writ, order or direction by quashing the impugned orders dated 27.4.2013 and 6.2.2014 (Annexure-P/4 and P/1) passed by the Respondent No.2, RTA and STAT, respectively. (ii) Passing of any other order/direction, which may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed.” 2. On going through the pleadings and averments, it emerges that the petitioner is a holder of regular stage carriage permit bearing No.14/Damoh/2005-06 on Hatta to Jabalpur via Bangaon Damoh Abhana, Taijghar Tandukheda Pandajhir Patan Nunsar Route for one trip which is valid up to 30th June, 2016. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3, namely, Karan Singh Parihar moved before the RTA for seeking two permits to ply bus from Damoh to Hatta via Palar, Bangaon, Luhari and Damoh to Jabalpur via Abhana, Naohata, Gabera, Simgrampur, Gubra, Katangi by submitting one application vide Annexure-P/2 dated 11.1.2012 and proposing his vehicle bearing registration No.MP34 P-0138 for both permits. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of consideration of the application in question no heed was paid to the provisions contemplated in Rule 72(3) of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 and further to the Notification dated 24.11.2010 which prescribed the method for seeking requisite permit and production of necessary documents at the time of submission of the application. It is submitted that the learned RTO in the absence of having such materials and failure on the part of the respondent No.3 to comply with the conditions under the relevant provisions, the permit was granted in his favour vide Annexure-P/3 which is valid up to 31.7.2018. It is submitted that the learned RTO in the absence of having such materials and failure on the part of the respondent No.3 to comply with the conditions under the relevant provisions, the permit was granted in his favour vide Annexure-P/3 which is valid up to 31.7.2018. It is submitted that by granting the permit to the respondent No.3, the authority itself has closed the eyes and violated the provisions of law and on revision against the order passed by the RTO, the appellate authority also failed to appreciate the objection raised by the petitioner and consider the law, hence by preferring the present petition, it is prayed that both the orders be quashed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavily reliance on the provisions of Rule 70 as well as Rule 72(1)(a) of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. Further reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Vivek Dwivedi v. Prem Narain [ 1999(1) JLJ 61 = AIR 1999 MP 1 ] to contend that the orders are not sustainable in law. 4. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the provisions contemplated under the Act as well as Rules, this Court is of the considered view that the orders impugned are not sustainable in the eyes of law. In the case of Vivek Dwivedi (supra), it was clearly laid down that one application is confined only to one permit for a single route as single permit for two different routes is not permissible. 5. Similarly in Writ Petition No.9382/12 (Sita Devi Mange v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others) it was held by this Court vide order dated 11.3.2014 as under :- “Rule 72(3) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred Rules of 1994) prescribes that an application of stage carriage permit shall be accompanied by certain documents and one of the condition is of certificate of registering authority in regard to ownership of vehicle of the applicant. Relevant rule is as under :- (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:” From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that an person must be the owner of the vehicle. Relevant rule is as under :- (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:” From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that an person must be the owner of the vehicle. It means that if a person files two separate applications for two permits, then he must be the owner of two vehicles because one vehicle could not be covered under both the permits.” 6. Therefore, in our considered view the impugned permit (Annexure-P/3) granted in favour of respondent No.3 Karan Singh for plying single Bus bearing registration No.MP34 P-0138 on two separate routes is bad in law. 7. Accordingly, by quashing both the orders assailed herein, the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2/RTA to pass a fresh order in regard to grant of permit to the respondent No.3 which would be confined to a single route by re-fixing the time schedule in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to all affected parties.