Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1152 (MP)

Prabhat Transport Company v. State of M. P.

2017-11-10

SUJOY PAUL

body2017
ORDER 1. Petitioner held a stage carriage permit SCP 349/STA/1996 on Paratwada to Bhainsdehi (Interstate) route for one trip daily which was valid up to 31.3.2016 and during pendency of renewal application made within time, and presently, i.e. at the time when the writ petition was filed on 16.7.2016, the petitioner was operating on temporary permit granted under section 7(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, valid up to 31.7.2016. That during subsistence of the regular stage carriage permit petitioner moved an application under sub-section (3) of section 80 of 1988 Act for variation of permit condition by way of increase of three more stoppages within the portion of Madhya Pradesh, i.e., Gudgaon, Sawalmeda and Kothalkund on 27.12.2010. The State Transport Authority by its order dated 18.9.2014, rejected the application for increase of stoppage on the findings of non-filing of documents as specified under rule 72(3) of Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules 1994. That, a revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on 23.6.2016 whereagainst the present writ petition is filed. 2. Evidently, the revision order dated 23.6.2016 is being questioned on the ground that the revisional authority has glossed over the law laid down in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore v. B.A. Jayaram and others [ AIR 1984 SC 790 ], for the proposition that the nature of variation sought by the petitioner does not became a new permit if such variation is granted as would attract the stipulation contained under sub-section (3) of section 80 of 1988 Act. The petitioner has also relied on the decision in Hazarilal Gupta v. State Transport Appellate Authority, M.P. and others [ 1970 JLJ 287 = 1970 MPLJ 284 ], decided by the Division Bench of this Court for the proposition that an application for grant of variation in existing permit being not a new permit as would attract the provisions contained under rule 72(3) of the Rules. Petitioner has also relied upon the decision in M/s Sukhsagar Transport v. State Transport Appellate Authority and others [Writ Petition No.1223/1997 decided on 1.8.1998]. 3. Petitioner has also relied upon the decision in M/s Sukhsagar Transport v. State Transport Appellate Authority and others [Writ Petition No.1223/1997 decided on 1.8.1998]. 3. Sub-section (3) of section 80 of 1988 Act envisages : “(3) An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, or in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit : Provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat an application made by the holder of stage carriage permit who provides the only service on any route to increase the frequency of the service so provided without any increase in the number of vehicles : Provided further that,- (i) in the case of variation, the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres; (ii) in the case of extension, the distance covered by extension shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres from the termini, and any such variation or extension within such limits shall be made only after the transport authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof.” That Rule 72(3)(a) of the Rules provide for :- “72. Forms of Application For Permits:- (3) The application for stage carriage permit or reserved stage carriage permit as required under sub-section (1) of section 70 shall be accompanied by the following documents, namely: (a) an authentic route map along with certified distance between various stages and certificate regarding motorability of the route from the departments which have control over such road.” 4. The case of Shiv Chand Amolak Chand v. The Regional Transport Authority and another [1984 JLJ 1=1984 AIR (SC)9], was in respect of the provisions of old Act, viz., Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 and the issue was as to whether section 47(3) is attracted when an application is made by a holder of a permit for extension of the route specified in the permit. The given facts as borne out from paragraph 6 of the report were that the permit held by the appellants in the said case, after the decision of the portion of the route from Shivpuri to Satanwara was operative only for remaining portion of the route, namely, Satanwara – Gwalior via Dabra and in view of the modification made in Scheme No.11-M by the notification issued by the State Government under section 68-F sub-section (2) on 18th December, 1978, the appellants applied for extension of the route from Satanwara to Shivpuri, a distance less than 20 Kms. 5. It was in this fact situation question arose as to whether the application could be considered by the Regional Transport Authority without first determining under section 47(3) the number of stage carriages for which permits may be granted for the route Shivpuri-Satanwara-Gwalior via Dabra, because if the extension was granted, that would be the route for which the permit would be operative, which led Hon'ble Supreme Court to negative the contention by the State that no application for grant of new permit can be granted and held that the permit for the extended route does not become new permit in the hand of such permit holder. 6. Similar were the fact situations in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore (supra), and in Hazarilal Gupta (supra). The decision in M/s Sukhsagar Transport (supra), turns on its own fact as would be of any assistance to the petitioner. 7. In the case at hand, evident it is from the contention in paragraph 5.2 of the petition that the petitioner had filed an application under section 80(3) of 1988 for variation, the application therefore has been treated as for the grant of new permit. 8. 7. In the case at hand, evident it is from the contention in paragraph 5.2 of the petition that the petitioner had filed an application under section 80(3) of 1988 for variation, the application therefore has been treated as for the grant of new permit. 8. Having filed an application under sub-section (3) of section 80 of Act of 1988 and since the variation tantamounted to grant of new permit, the authorities as well as the revisional Tribunal are well within their right in construing that the stipulation contained under rule 72(3)(a) of Rules of 1994 is attracted the view expressed by the authority as well as the appellate Tribunal cannot be faulted with. Coupled with the fact that the petitioner has not adverted as to whether there is renewal of regular stage carriage permit after its expiry on 31.3.2016. 9. In view whereof, this Court is of the opinion that since no illegality is committed in rejecting the application under section 80(3) of the Act of 1988, consequently, no indulgence is caused. Petition fails and is dismissed. R. D. Sharma for petitioner; Praveen Newaskar, Government Advocate for respondents/State; Sanjay Sharma for respondent No.3.