Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shakir Hussain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 August, 2018
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MP-3322-2018
(Shakir Hussain & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)
Gwalior, Dated : 13/08/2018
Shri N.K. Gupta, learned Senior counsel with Shri M.S. Jadon,
counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned Government Advocate for
respondent No.1/State.
Shri R.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 to
4. With consent, heard finally.
The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 05/07/2018 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior (STAT), whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioners have been dismissed on the ground that revision has rendered infructuous.
It is the case of the petitioners is that they are bus operators and sought temporary permit for the route from Ujjain to Alirajpur and therefore, appeared before the Regional Transport Authority, Indore but authority vide order dated 12/06/2018 passed an order and granted temporary permit to the respondent No.4 for plying the vehicle as per Section 87 (1) (C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioners, herein, challenge the said order of grant of permit to the respondent No.4 by way of revision under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before STAT. Although, vide order dated 12/06/2018, respondent No.4 was granted temporary permit for the period, 01/04/2018 to 31/07/2018 but respondent No.4 for its personal convenience deposited the tax for the period of 01/04/2018 till 30/06/2018 and for remaining one month, July, 2018, respondent No.4 did not show any interest, although he could have availed the benefit of temporary permit on deposit of requisite tax for July, 2018 also. Meanwhile, petitioners approached before the STAT in revision and on 05/07/2018 STAT dismissed the revision as rendered infructuous.
2Petitioners are aggrieved only in respect of the observation, wherein STAT has treated the revision as rendered infructuous because according to the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, the order dated 12/06/2018 was in vogue till 31/07/2018 and under the Motor Vehicles Act and its different provisions, the order of grant of permit can only be challenged instead of permit itself, therefore, petitioners had the legitimate cause of action to pursue the litigation till 31/07/2018 and only thereafter, the revision could have been rendered infructuous if at all, and not before that.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer made by the petitioners.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 opposed the prayer with vehemence and submits that guiding code in this regard in the fact that respondent No.4 lifted the permit by paying tax till 30/06/2018 and therefore, STAT rightly treated revision as rendered infructuous and did not cause illegality or perversity. He relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Dinshaw Rusi Mehta and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in [(2017) 5 SCC 157]. He also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Golden Travels Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. dated 02/01/2017 passed in writ petition No.9027/2016 and order of Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 27/02/2018 passed in W.P. No.2483/2018 and prays for dismissal of writ petition.
Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.
In the case in hand, it appears that Regional Transport Authority, Indore passed an order dated 12/06/2018 by which the permit was issued in favour of respondent No.4, for the period from 01/04/2018 to 31/07/2018, purportedly, under Section 87 (1) (c) of the Act, 1988. In other words, respondent No.4 had the legal authority to ply the vehicle over the route Ujjain to Alirajpur between the period of 01/04/2018 till 31/07/2018. The said permit was purportedly issued under Section 87 (1) (c) of the Act, 1988. Against the said order, the person/another bus operator, who suffered, has the 3 liberty to file revision under Section 90 of the Act. The said provision is reiterated for clarity purpose:-
Section 90:- "Revision.--The State Transport Appellate Tribunal may, on an application made to it, call for the record of any case in which an order has been made by a State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority against which no appeal lies, and if it appears to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal that the order made by the State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority is improper or illegal, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal may pass such order in relation to the case as it deems fit and every such order shall be final:
Provided that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal shall not entertain any application from a person aggrieved by an order of a State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority, unless the application is made within thirty days from the date of the order:
Provided further that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making the application in time:
Provided also that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal shall not pass an order under this section prejudicial to any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard."
Perusal of the said provision makes it clear that the respondent No.4 could have plied vehicle up to 31/07/2018, therefore, the bone of contention grant of permit between the litigating parties exists till 31/07/2018 and not at the discretion of the respondent No.4 who lifted the permit only for a limited period because the grounds of revision encompass is not only grant of permit but the order which governs the grant of permit, therefore, observations of the revisional authority i.e. STAT that matter was rendered infructuous after 30/06/2018 does not hold good because the cause of action survives for the petitioners in respect of order dated 12/06/2018 till the order survives i.e. 31/07/2018.
Sweet Will of the permit holder cannot govern the provisions contained in Section 90 of the Act 1988. It would have been possible that the respondent No.4 in the month of July itself would have thought for getting permit for some days and the authority had to oblige him by giving permit by the effect of the order dated 4 12/06/2018 till 31/07/2018, therefore, it cannot be said that with the end of permit, cause of action eclipsed into oblivion. It was also possible that after passing of impugned order dated 05/07/2018, respondent No.4 could have sought permit for remaining period till 31/07/2018.
Even otherwise, the scope of revision is only in respect of order dated 12/06/2018 and petitioners had no legitimate authority to challenge the grant of permit, therefore, on this count also cause of action survives qua order dated 12/06/2018 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Indore, whereby the permit was ordered to be granted to the respondent No.4.
The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 in the case of Dinshaw Rusi Mehta and Another (Supra) move in different factual realm because said judgment is in respect of some scheme / agreement impugned in the said litigation which stood terminated and therefore, due to factual differentiation having no binding force between the parties. In that factual aspect guidance of the Apex Court has been issued.
Resultantly, the order dated 05/07/2018 passed by the STAT is modified to the extent that revision was not rendered infructuous. Its cause of action kept alive till 31/07/2018. However, in the given facts situation of the case, wherein we all are in the month of August of 2018, no such cause of action still survives for the petitioners to agitate.
Petition is partly allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(Anand Pathak) Judge rahul Digitally signed by RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Date: 2018.08.16 15:42:55 +05'30'