Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shaligram Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 November, 2019
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.P. No.6095/2019
(Shaligram Sharma vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)
Gwalior, Dated : 25.11.2019
Shri R.D. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta, senior Advocate with Shri Man Singh
Jadon, counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4, on caveat.
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 14.11.2019 passed in Revision No.295/2019 whereby the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) instead of deciding the question of locus standi of respondents No. 3 and 4 to file a revision petition have decided the revision on merits and quashed the order dated 22.10.2019. It is alleged that the petitioner is owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.MP07P0924 of the year 2013 and has applied for grant of temporary permit from Gwalior RBS to Lahar route for one trip daily w.e.f. 1.11.2019 to 30.11.2019 showing temporary need in its column No.4 mentioning the reason as under:-
"Public convenience 87-1-C MV Act like Hat Bazar, Court Kachari, Marriage School, College, Open Season, Local Mela, Festival, All months like Baldiwas etc."
The said application was not opposed by the respondents No. 3 and 4 because their route was different. It is alleged that the learned STA considering the permanent need of the route in question has formulated the route on 5.5.03 through resolution No.187. The same was duly countersigned by the Secretary RTA Gwalior and was not challenged by respondents No. 3 and 4 at any 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P. No.6095/2019 (Shaligram Sharma vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) point of time. It is alleged that on the application being made by the petitioner the temporary permit was granted to him vide order dated 22.10.2019 w.e.f. 1.11.2019 to 30.11.2019. Challenging the order dated 22.10.2019 respondents No. 3 and 4 has filed a joint revision which was registered as 295/19 before the STAT, M.P. Gwalior and the aforesaid revision was considered and decided on merits by the learned STAT. It is alleged that the respondents No. 3 and 4 were having no right to file the revision. In view of the decision rendered by this Court in M.P. No.722/2018 and M.P. No. 9157/2018 because they are neither the co-applicants nor the objectors operating on the route in question. It is alleged that the learned STAT without deciding the question of maintainability of the revision and locus of the respondents No. 3 and 4 to file the review has allowed the revision by the impugned order, therefore, the same is put to challenge by filing the petition. It is alleged that the order impugned is contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Alnoori Tobacco Products & Anr. reported in (2004) 6 SCC 186 wherein it is held that prior to deciding the case on merits if there is a question of maintainability of the case then the issue with respect to maintainability should be decided first. It is alleged that the learned STAT instead of dealing with the question of maintainability of revision has decided the revision on merits which is contrary to law. 3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P. No.6095/2019 (Shaligram Sharma vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) It is further alleged that the learned STAT has failed to consider that in view of the liberalized policy of the Act and in terms of Section 80 (1) (2) dealing with grant of temporary permit the application filed by the petitioner was valid and was rightly granted the temporary permit. It is alleged that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He has relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1992 SC 443, Munnawar Jahan Begum (Smt.) & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1992 JLJ 180, Mohd. Ansar (Anwar) vs. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Ors. reported in 2019 (1) MPJR 20 and further the order dated 10.11.2017 passed in W.A. No.951/17 in the case of Ajit Singh Bhadoriya vs. Narendra Sachdeva and others. He has further relied upon the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.1623/2019 wherein this Court has granted interim relief on 27.03.2019. He has prayed for quashment of the impugned order.
Counsel for the respondent has filed the caveat in the matter and in pursuance to the permission granted by this Court he has filed a detailed reply to the petition. It is alleged that the learned STAT has not committed any error in entertaining the revision filed by the respondents No. 3 and 4. Counsel for the respondent has drawn attention of this Court to the impugned order and has argued 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P. No.6095/2019 (Shaligram Sharma vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) that the provisions as contained in Section 80 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act has been considered by the learned STAT while allowing the revision. It is alleged that at the time of rejection of the application for grant of permit the specific reasons are required to be assigned. The basic object of the Act is to be taken into consideration i.e. the convenience of the passengers for providing them facilities, the requirement of more and more conveyance considering the increase in the population and to put a check on the monopoly of certain transporters which in turn is helpful in the development of the State. In pursuance to provisions contained under Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 temporary permits can be issued looking to the requirement which will be valid for maximum four months. The temporary permits can be issued on special occasions like organization of a religious function, Mela, seasonal business etc. Considering the same the temporary permits are being issued in the matter. The basic purpose for issuance of permit i.e. public convenience like Hat bazar, Court kachari, marriage school, college, seasonal festivals, mela festival etc. are required to be considered while granting temporary permits but while rejecting the application for grant of temporary permit the specific reasons and findings are required to be recorded by the authorities. The learned STAT has relied upon the judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ali Ahmed V/s. 5
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P. No.6095/2019 (Shaligram Sharma vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) Regional Transport Authority Bilaspur, reported in 1985 MPLJ 199 and the order passed in W.P. No.6819/12 Sanjay Lonkar vs. Secretary STA and others vide order dated 27.07.2012. It is contended that as some part of the route in question is common with both petitioner as well as the respondents No. 3 and 4, therefore, the objections filed by them should have been considered and rightly been decided. Counsel for the respondent has drawn attention of this Court to the Map (Annexure P/3) wherein the common route has been shown. He has further relied upon the order passed by this Court in M.P. No.4391/2018 in the case of Shri Gurinder Singh Atwal Vs. State of M.P. and others wherein the writ petition was allowed by the Court and the original permit granted was restored. It is alleged that the learned STAT has not committed any error in entertaining the revision petition as the objectors were having right for raising objections against the permit being issued to the petitioner as there was a common route. It is further argued that no actual permit was ever been issued to the petitioner as no such order regarding issuance of permit has been filed by the petitioner himself. He has drawn attention of this Court to Annexure P/5 which is a document relied upon by the petitioner showing that the permit was issued to him. It is further submitted that the period which has been mentioned in Annexure P/5 is from 1.11.2019 to 30.11.2019 that is already expired on 30.11.2019. It is submitted 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P. No.6095/2019 (Shaligram Sharma vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) that after expiry of the aforesaid period the petition itself is not maintainable and has rendered infructuous. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From the perusal of the record it is seen that the question as far as maintainability of the revision before the STAT is concerned, this Hon'ble Court in Mohd Ansar (Anwar) (supra) has considered the aforesaid preposition and has held as under:-
"The respondents No.3 & 4 were not the applicant for the route for which petitioner applied, but were operating over part of said route. Objection of their locus to object the grant was taken, but the tribunal did not decide the same. Thus, there is remains no iota of doubt, that the respondent No. 3 and 4 had no locus to question to the grant of stage carriage permit in favour of the petitioner. It is incumbent upon the tribunal to have dismissed the revisions said ground along. The tribunal, in the considered opening of this court, grossly erred the entertaining the revision. Consequently while setting aside the order passed by the tribunal, the revision petitions preferred by respondents no. 3 and 4 are dismissed."
The coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Shri Gurinder Singh Atwal has held as under:-
"Thus, it is clear that objections can be raised with regard to condition of roads, social status of the applicant, possibility of smalloperators being eliminated by big operators, conditions of hilly routes, fuel availability and pollution control etc., but it is an admitted position, that no such objection was raised by the respondent no.3 before the R.T.A. or before the S.T.A.T. Even before this Court, no such objection has been raised. All the objections which have been raised by the respondent no.3 were in relation to the maintainability of the application and availability/non-availability of spare vehicle with the petitioner. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kalim Mohd (Supra) has not held that all sorts of objections can be raised by 7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P. No.6095/2019 (Shaligram Sharma vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) the part route operators, who are not the co-applicants. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, in absence of any objection of the nature mentioned in para 15 of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg (Supra) and in the case of Kalim Mohd. (Supra) it cannot be said that the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mohd.
Ansar (Anwar) (Supra) is per-incurium.
Accordingly, it is held that the respondent no. 3 had no locus standi to challenge the grant of regular permit before the S.T.A.T. or even before the R.T.A. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the S.T.A.T. should not have entertained the revision on behalf of the respondent no.3.
For the reasons mentioned above, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the order dated 25-8-2018 passed by S.T.A.T., Gwalior in Revision No. 109/2016 cannot be allowed to stand, and accordingly, it is set aside."
The respondents are said to be objectors in the matter. The respondents are not the co-applicants for grant of regular permit on the aforesaid route in question. They are having no right to either object before the RTA nor are having any locus standi to challenge the order of RTA before the STAT. The learned STAT has entertained the revision petition without deciding the question of maintainability of the revision petition. The learned STAT has only taken the note of the fact that a non speaking order has been passed by the STA which is contrary to the purpose of grant of permit, in such circumstances, the temporary permit granted to the petitioner on 1.11.2019 to 30.11.2019 for plying the vehicle in question vide order dated 22.10.2019 has been cancelled. The order appears to be unsustainable in view of the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid cases. The question regarding maintainability of the revision by the objectors/respondents No. 3 and 4 is required to be 8 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P. No.6095/2019 (Shaligram Sharma vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) examined and determined first. As has been considered and held in the cases of Mohd. Ansar (Anwar) (Supra) and Shri Gurinder Singh Atwal (supra) that objectors have no right to file a revision. Once they are not the applicant for the route, therefore, in such circumstances, the order dated 14.11.2019 is unsustainable and hereby set aside. The temporary permit granted to the petitioner on 22.10.2019 is hereby restored. But as the period of temporary permit is already expired on 30.11.2019, therefore, there is no requirement of remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Petition stands allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
(Vishal Mishra) Judge van SMT VANDANA VERMA 2020.01.07 10:26:02 +05'00'