Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 877 (MP)

Shri prakash Gupta v. State of M. P.

2014-07-23

S.K.GANGELE, S.K.PALO

body2014
Judgment 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dt. 26.2.2014 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) in Revision No. 178/2013. 3. The petitioner was granted permit of a route Morena to Bhind vide order dt. 2.7.2009 for a period of five years. The route was earlier reserved for M.P. State Road Transport Corporation. A writ petition was filed before the main seat at Jabalpur, which was registered as W.P. No. 15166/2007 in regard to issuance of permits to the private operators against the routes which were reserved for M.P. State Road Transport Corporation. High Court granted stay in regard to grant of permit against the routes, which were reserved for M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, hence, the petitioner was not permitted to operate on the route. The aforesaid stay order was vacated and writ petition was disposed of by the High Court. Thereafter show cause notice dt. 18.7.2012 was issued to the petitioner that the petitioner did not operate the vehicle on the route and submitted another vehicle to be covered under the permit which was taken by the petitioner on lease, hence, why the permit granted to the petitioner be not cancelled. 4. The petitioner filed reply to the notice. Thereafter, the transport authority vide order dt. 16.4.2013 accepted the contention of the petitioner. Against the aforesaid order, a revision was filed before the STAT. The Tribunal allowed the revision on the ground that the petitioner was not authorised to lift the permit because he was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of lifting of the permit and he offered the vehicle, which was on lease to be covered under the permit, hence, the petitioner is not eligible to get permanent permit. 5. It is a fact that the petitioner was granted a permanent permit but he could not operate on the route because there was a stay. In the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of permanent permit the petitioner mentioned the vehicle number as M.P.06/P0178, Model--2008 as available vehicle, however, subsequently he had offered another vehicle which was taken by him on lease after a period of three years. Because at the time of grant of permit, there was stay by the High Court, hence, he could not ply the vehicle on the route. 6. Because at the time of grant of permit, there was stay by the High Court, hence, he could not ply the vehicle on the route. 6. Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as Act of 1988) defines owner of a motor vehicle, which reads as under:- (30) "owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered and, where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire, purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement; 7. From the reading of the aforesaid section it is clear that a person having an agreement of lease of a motor vehicle is also an owner of the vehicle. 8. In such circumstances, the RTA has rightly held that the petitioner was eligible to operate on the route and another vehicle offered by the petitioner for which the petitioner had a lease could be covered under the permit. The Tribunal has wrongly relied on the judgment of this court in Padamchand Gupta and others Vs. STAT and others reported in 2014(1) MPLJ 124. In the aforesaid judgment the vehicle was covered under another permit, that is not the present case. 9. Hence, the petition is allowed. Impugned order is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.