ORDER : 1. Aggrieved by the Order dated 6.2.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No.2, the Regional Transport Authority, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner. 2. Vide the impugned Order, the Authority concerned has rejected the application of the Petitioner seeking for permit on the route Kansbahara to Manendragarh via Ushad, Barour, Marvahi, Danikundi, Sakda, Jaroundha, Devadand, Koda with 2 return trips daily. 3. The impugned Order would reveal that the application of the Petitioner has been rejected, primarily, on three grounds. The first two grounds being that of there being a clash of timing with the other operators and the third ground being that of the permit sought for is one which is in respect of three terminals, which is otherwise not permissible under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the MV Act'). 4. Assailing the impugned Order, learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that the impugned Order so far as the first and second grounds are concerned, the same is hit by the provisions of Sections 71 and 80 of the MV Act. According to the Petitioner, before rejecting the application of the Petitioner, the concerned Authority has not given an opportunity to the Petitioner for revising the time schedule so as to avoid time clash with the other operators, which is otherwise requirement of law. Learned Counsel for Petitioner, in this regard, refers to the Judgment of this High Court passed on 18.2.2022 in W.P.(C) No.890/2022 (Sanjay Singh Vs. Regional Transport Authority). 5. As regards the third ground, learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that the analogy applied by the Authority concerned while rejecting the application on the ground that the permit sought for is one which has three terminals, would not be applicable in the instant case for the reason that the route for which the permission has been sought for is on the same highway. That, in between the return trip, the Petitioner intends to operate the Bus from Manendragrah to Sakda which is a short duration trip on the same highway. Thus, the three terminals principle should not be applied in the instant case and the impugned Order therefore also needs to be interfered with. 6. That, in between the return trip, the Petitioner intends to operate the Bus from Manendragrah to Sakda which is a short duration trip on the same highway. Thus, the three terminals principle should not be applied in the instant case and the impugned Order therefore also needs to be interfered with. 6. Learned State Counsel, per contra, submits that so far as the ground of three terminals is concerned, the said finding of the Authority is squarely covered by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in " AIR 1999 MP 1 " in the matter of "Vivek Tejnarain Dwivedi & Anr. v. Prem Narain & Ors." [LPA No.73/1998] where in an identical set of facts the Division Bench has held that such permit cannot be granted even if it falls on the same highway. It would still amount to three terminals which otherwise is not permissible. 7. As regards the first and second grounds, learned State Counsel submits that upon due perusal of the timing that the Petitioner has sought for, it was found that it was in clash with the other operators on the said route. Therefore, since there was a clash in the route, the application was rightly rejected. So far as rescheduling is concerned, learned State Counsel submits that the Petitioner would always be free to move fresh application for grant of fresh permit on the basis of new time schedule and, therefore, the impugned Order does not warrant any interference. 8. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the issue of three terminals. Dealing with the said issue, it would also be pertinent to take note of the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in "Vivek Tejnarain Dwivedi" (supra) where in Paragraphs 25 to 28 it has been held as under:- "25. The route is an essential ingredient of a permit authorising the plying of motor vehicles on a public highway It is an-abstract concept of line of travel between one terminus and another and is not the same thing as a physical tract between two termii. It is of the essence of a route in respect of which a permit is granted, that it should run from one terminus to another so as to ensure a service between the two terminii. 26. It is of the essence of a route in respect of which a permit is granted, that it should run from one terminus to another so as to ensure a service between the two terminii. 26. There can be no manner of doubt that a route has two terminals and further as required under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the route must be set out not only in the application form but also in the permit itself. If one of the two terminals is different, it will constitute a different route although the line of travel and the highway traversed might be common to both the routes. 27. In the present case, Prem Narain, the contesting respondent, had sought for the permit for plying his stage carriage between Ashoknagar and Kadwaya via Saraskhedi, Isagarh, Gahora and Manethi and for plying his stage carriage between Ashoknagar and Isagarh via Saraskhedi. The mere fact that the highway to be traversed was common and the terminals fell on the same highway therefore was wholly immaterial. In the circumstances there being more than two terminals there could be no escape from the conclusion that the application was for permit to operate the state carriage service on two different routes. 28. We are of the considered opinion that in the circumstances of the case, the application filed by the contesting respondent had to be taken to be an application for permits for plying his stage carriage on two separate routes as is envisaged under Section 2(38) of the Act. 9. In view of the specific findings of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in "Vivek Tejnarain Dwivedi" (supra), the facts of the present Petition being same, this Court is inclined to endorse the same view and uphold the findings of the Respondent authority in rejecting the application of the Petitioner applying three terminals principle and the impugned Order, to that extent, does not warrant interference. 10. However, so far as the non-adherence to the provisions of Section 71 as also Section 80 of the MV Act is concerned, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the provisions sub-section (2) of Section 71 which for ready reference are reproduced herein under:- "71. 10. However, so far as the non-adherence to the provisions of Section 71 as also Section 80 of the MV Act is concerned, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the provisions sub-section (2) of Section 71 which for ready reference are reproduced herein under:- "71. Procedure of Regional Transport Authority in considering application for stage carriage permit - (1) A Regional Transport Authority shall, while considering an application for a stage carriage permit, have regard to the objects of this Act. (2) A Regional Transport Authority shall refuse to grant a stage carriage permit if it appears from any time-table furnished that the provisions of this Act relating to the speed at which vehicles may be driven are likely to be contravened : Provided that before such refusal an opportunity shall be given to the applicant to amend the time-table so as to conform to the said provisions." 11. From plain reading of the aforementioned sub-section (2) of Section 71 would clearly reflect that the mandate of the Act is unambiguous, as the proviso to sub-section (2) clearly reflects that before the Authority refuses to grant Stage Carriage Permit, what is required is that the operator shall be given an opportunity to amend the time table so as to ensure that there is no clash of timing with the other operators. This opportunity, as is required under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 71, does not seem to have been adhered to while passing the impugned Order or at-least the impugned Order lacks detailed information in this regard. 12. It would also be relevant at this juncture to take note of the provisions of Section 80 of the MV Act which deals with the procedure to be applied by the Authority concerned while considering the application for grant of permit. The second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 80 also, in very categorical terms, envisages that before the Regional Transport Authority refuses the application for grant of permission to the applicant, it is required that the said Authority discloses its intention to the applicant and also gives an opportunity of hearing to the applicant on the reasons on which the Authority intends to reject the application for grant of permit. For ready reference, the provisions sub-section (2) of Section 80 are also reproduced below:- "80. For ready reference, the provisions sub-section (2) of Section 80 are also reproduced below:- "80. Procedure in applying for and granting permits – (1) An application for a permit of any kind may be made at any time. (2) A Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 66 shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under this Act : Provided that the Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 66 may summarily refuse the application if the grant of any permit in accordance with the application would have the effect of increasing the number of stage carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 71 or of contract carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause (a) of subsection (3) of section 74 : Provided further that where a Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 66 refuses an application for the grant of a permit of any kind under this Act, it shall give to the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal of the same and an opportunity of being heard in the matter." 13. From bare perusal of the aforesaid two provisions of law reproduced in the preceding paragraphs, i.e., sub-section (2) of Section 71 and subsection (2) of Section 80 of the MV Act, it would be clear that the two provisions have to be jointly read, as they deal with the same issue of granting of Stage Carriage Permit and the manner in which the Authorities have to proceed while considering the application in this regard. The aforesaid two provisions clearly indicate that, first of all, if the Authority concerned is inclined to reject the application, the intention of rejection should be informed to the applicant in advance and also grants an opportunity to the applicant on the grounds on which the Authority intends to reject the same. The aforesaid two provisions clearly indicate that, first of all, if the Authority concerned is inclined to reject the application, the intention of rejection should be informed to the applicant in advance and also grants an opportunity to the applicant on the grounds on which the Authority intends to reject the same. Further, in the event, if the rejection is on the ground of clash of timing with the other operators, the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 71 clearly requires the Authority to provide an opportunity to the applicant to amend time schedule, if he so wants. 14. In the given factual matrix of the case and also the requirement of law, as has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs, which the Authority concerned has not dealt with while passing the impugned Order, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned Order dated 6.2.2023, to the aforesaid extent, would not be sustainable and the same deserves to be and is, accordingly, set aside. 15. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the Respondent authorities to take a fresh decision on the application of the Petitioner in respect of the Stage Carriage Permit on the route Kansbahara to Manendragarh via Ushad, Barour, Marvahi, Danikundi, Sakda, Jaroundha, Devadand, Koda with return trips daily. While taking a fresh decision, the Respondent authorities are required to ensure that the aforementioned two provisions of law, i.e., sub-section (2) of Section 71 and sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the MV Act, are strictly adhered to. 16. Considering the period of time lapsed, the Authority concerned is expected to take appropriate decision, after compliance as is directed above, within an outer limit of sixty days. 17. The Writ Petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.