Banmali Gupta Bus Service v. State Of Madhya Pradesh
2014-01-13
RAJENDRA MENON, S.K.GANGELE
body2014
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : S. K. Gangele, J. Shri Brijesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has filed the petition against the order dated 29-4-2014 (Annexure-P-7) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior [in short ‘STAT”] in Revision No. 9/2014. One Matadeen Yadav was granted a permanent permit of State carriage of inter-State route from Tikamgarh to Datia. The permit was valid up to 8-7-2008 in accordance with the reciprocal agreement entered between State of M. P. and State of U. P. under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act 1988. The permanent permit was issued by State Transport Authority U. P. The authority fixed the following timings of the permit:- 3. Mr. Matadeen Yadav submitted the permit for countersignature to the State Transport Authority, State of M. P. for countersignature. At the time of countersignature, the authority made the following changes in timing. 4. The respondent no. 4 filed a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Authority challenging the timing of permit on the ground that the State Transport Authority M. P. had no power and authority to change the timing without permission from the State Transport Authority U. P. The revision petition has been allowed by the STAT by the impugned order on the ground that in accordance with the terms and conditions of reciprocal agreements, the timing of permit cannot be changed by the State Transport Authority of M. P without approval from the State Transport Authority U. P. The STAT quoted one of the conditions of reciprocal agreement with regard to change of timings which reads as under:- 5. The terms and condition of reciprocal agreement entered between the State of M. P. and State of U. P. are statutory in nature because the agreement was entered between the State of M. P. and U. P. in accordance with the provision of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, and the terms and conditions of the agreement has also been published in the Official Gazette. Section 88 (5) and (6) of the Act 1988 provides agreement between the States to fix the number of permits and grant of countersignature of permits.
Section 88 (5) and (6) of the Act 1988 provides agreement between the States to fix the number of permits and grant of countersignature of permits. The same read as under:- “(5) Every proposal to enter into an agreement between the States to fix the number of permits which is proposed to be granted or countersigned in respect of each route or area, shall be published by each of the State Governments concerned in the Official Gazette and in any one or more of the newspapers in regional language circulating in the area or route proposed to be covered by the agreement together with a notice of the date before which representations in connection therewith may be submitted, and the date not being less than thirty days from the date of publication in the Official Gazette, on which, and the authority by which, and the time and place at which, the proposal and any representation received in connection therewith will be considered. (6) Every agreement arrived at between the States shall, in so far as it relates to the grant of countersignature of permits, be published by each of the State Governments concerned in the official Gazette and in any one or more of the newspapers in the regional language circulating in the area or route covered by the agreement and the State Transport Authority of the State and the Regional Transport Authority concerned shall give effect to it.” 6. Section 88 (6) of the Act 1988, prescribes that agreement so far as it relates to grant of countersignature of permits, be published by each of the State Governments concerned in the Official Gazette. Hence, the State of M. P. was not authorized to change the timing of permit without approval from the State of UP at the time of countersignature of permit. 7. The impugned order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is in accordance with law. No error of jurisdiction has been committed by the Tribunal. Hence we do not find any merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed.