JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts. 2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following relief: "a. The impugned order passed by Member, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur dated 16.05.2019 (Annex. 6) in appeal no. A58/19 may kindly be quashed and set aside." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that per the sanctioned stage carriage permit in question, the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-13-PA-5021, Model 2014 was to remain in currency only for a period of five years i.e. from 13.07.2016 to 12.07.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments: (a) S.V. Sivaswami Servai v. Hafez Motor Transport (Firm) & Ors. AIR 1991 SC 911 (b) B.R. Baliga v. Town Municipal Council, Udupi AIR 1996 Karnataka 85 (c) Rikhi Ram and Ors. v. The State of Haryana and Ors. AIR 1976 P&H 196 . 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner is not an aggrieved person in the present case, and therefore, the petitioner did not have any locus standi to approach this Court, while raising the present grievance, under the writ jurisdiction. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the petitioner has not submitted any application for grant of permit on the Bikaner-Sri Ganganagar link route, and has in fact submitted an application for the grant of permit on Bikaner - Suratgarh route only. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the petitioner had filed a revision petition before the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short, 'S.T.A.T.') against the order dated 14.06.2016 passed by the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby the permit was granted to the respondent No. 4 and one Dilip Singh, in relation to Bikaner-Sriganganagar link route. However, as per learned counsel, the said revision petition was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 11.10.2018. Learned counsel also submits that thereafter, the petitioner did not pursue the case any further, despite the permit being granted in favour of a third party. 8. However, as per learned counsel, the said revision petition was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 11.10.2018. Learned counsel also submits that thereafter, the petitioner did not pursue the case any further, despite the permit being granted in favour of a third party. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his rejoinder arguments, submits that the petitioner was not made party to the appeal wherein the impugned order dated 16.05.2019 came to be passed, and thus, he had filed an application in the said appeal for the purpose of being impleaded as a party, which was accepted by the learned S.T.A.T. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter, draws the attention of this Court towards Section 68 sub-sections (3) & (4), of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as follows: "68. Transport Authorities- (1) ..... (2) ...... (3) The State Transport Authority and every Regional Transport Authority shall give effect to any directions issued under section 67 and the State Transport Authority shall, subject to such directions and save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, exercise and discharge throughout the State the following powers and functions, namely:-- (a) to co-ordinate and regulate the activities and policies of the Regional Transport Authorities, if any, of the State; (b) to perform the duties of a Regional Transport Authority where there is no such Authority and, if it thinks fit, or if so required by a Regional Transport Authority, to perform those duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions; (c) to settle all disputes and decide all matters on which differences of opinion arise between Regional Transport Authorities; and (ca) Government to formulate routes for plying stage carriages; (d) to discharge such other functions as may be prescribed. (4) For the purpose of exercising and discharging the powers and functions specified in sub-section (3), a State Transport Authority may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, issue directions to any Regional Transport Authority, and the Regional Transport Authority shall, in the discharge of its functions under this Act, give effect to and be guided by such directions. (5) ....." 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has the locus standi to approach this Court, in view of the provision as contained in Section 89 sub-section (1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as follows:- "89. Appeals. (5) ....." 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has the locus standi to approach this Court, in view of the provision as contained in Section 89 sub-section (1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as follows:- "89. Appeals. (1) Any person - (a) aggrieved by the refusal of the State or a Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit, or by any condition attached to a permit granted to him, or" 11. Learned counsel for the respondent, at this stage, submits that the above-mentioned provision of law, which deals with "Appeals" postulates, in unequivocal terms, that the pre-requisite for filing an appeal before the learned S.T.A.T. is that the person concerned must be 'any person aggrieved by refusal of the State of Regional Transport Authority'; however, as per learned counsel, the petitioner has no direct nexus with the respondent No. 4, so as to enable the petitioner to qualify as an 'aggrieved person', since the stage carriage permit in question did not bear the name of the present petitioner, rather the same bears the name of respondent No. 4. Thus, as per learned counsel, the petitioner does not fall within the purview of the term 'aggrieved person', so as to substantiate his having a locus standi to seek any relief under the writ jurisdiction. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the respondent No. 4 has in fact only moved a single application for a stage carriage permit on the Bikaner - Sri Ganganagar link route, and for which the permit has been granted in his favour, which is also evident from the record of the case. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the permit in question was to remain valid for a period of five years from the date of registration of vehicle, unless the same is replaced by a vehicle of the prescribed model, as per the specified conditions. 14. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the permit in question was to remain valid for a period of five years from the date of registration of vehicle, unless the same is replaced by a vehicle of the prescribed model, as per the specified conditions. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that after the expiry of the period of five years, the applicant would not be allowed to operate his vehicle on the concerned route, and that on an application made to the learned S.T.A.T. a period of three months, as grace period, was granted to the respondent for replacing the existing vehicle, while directing respondents No. 2 & 3 not to create any hurdle in the operation of the said vehicle within such grace period on the specified route. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the learned S.T.A.T. had the jurisdiction to pass an order granted grace period to the respondent No. 4 to replace the existing vehicle, as it was in the larger public interest availing the transport services being provided by the respondent No. 4 on the specified route, and further, to ensure that the State exchequer may not suffer any loss of revenue. 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 17. This Court finds that vide the impugned order dated 16.05.2019, the learned S.T.A.T. granted a grace period of three months to the respondent No. 4, to replace the vehicle in question, on the ground of financial hardships said to have been suffered by the respondent No. 4, while keeping into consideration the larger public interest, coupled with continuation of revenue generation by the State out of the transport services being provided by the respondent No. 4; it was also directed vide the said order that during the said period of three months, respondents No. 2 & 3 would not create any hurdle in smooth operation of the vehicle in question by the respondent No. 4 on the specified route. The said order, in the considered opinion of this Court, was a well reasoned and considered order and does not call for any interference by this Court. 18. The precedent laws cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the present case. 19. The said order, in the considered opinion of this Court, was a well reasoned and considered order and does not call for any interference by this Court. 18. The precedent laws cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the present case. 19. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.