Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Reena Chachda vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2023
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 1 st OF AUGUST, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 3608 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SMT. REENA CHACHDA W/O LATE SHRI HARISH
CHACHDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS
OPERATOR R/O BASANT COLONY NARSINGHPUR
ROAD CHHINDWARA DISTRICT CHHINDWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SUBODH KUMAR PANDEY-ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SECRETARY STATE TRASPORT AUTHORITY
SIROL HILLS GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. M/S PRAYAG TRAVELS BUS SERVICE THROUGH
ITS PROPRIETOR SMT. SAVITRI DEVI W/O SHRI
MAHESH KUMAR SINGH (M.K.SINGH) BY
OCCUPATION BUS OPERATOR R/O WARD NO.16
DEVELOPMENT AREA, GHAGROULA MOHALLA
SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI BRIJESH KUMAR DUBEY-ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR AND
SHRI ARNAV TIWARI-PANEL LAWYER)
MISC. PETITION No. 3518 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
M / S PRAYAG TRAVELS BUS SERVICE THROUGH ITS
PROPRIETOR SMT SARSWATI DEVI W/O LATESHRI
MAHESH KUMAR SINGH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
OCCUPATION BUS OPERATOR R/O WARD NO 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 05-08-
2023 14:49:21
2
GUAROLAMOHALLA SHAHDOL DISTRICT SHAHDOL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI BRIJESH KUMAR DUBEY-ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE TRANSPOT AUTHORITY OF M.P.
THROUGH SECRETARY HURA HILLS MURAR
GWALIOR DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. REENA CHACHDA W/O LATE HARISH
CHACHDA OCCUPATION: BUS OPERATOR R/O
BASANT COLONY NARSINGHPUR ROAD
CHHINDWARA DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ARNAV TIWARI-PANEL LAWYER FOR STATE AND SHRI
SUBODH KUMAR PANDEY-ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This order shall also govern disposal of MP No.3518/2023 which has been filed by respondent No.3 herein. For the sake of convenience, facts of MP No.3608/2023 are being taken note of.
2. The facts as elaborated in the petition reflect that the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 who owned their respective storage carriage vehicles, moved applications for grant of temporary permit for route Chhindwara to Nagpur. The said applications were ultimately considered by the Secretary, State Transport Authority and an order dated 16/05/2023 was passed in favour of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 was permitted to ply the vehicle on the aforesaid route till 31/08/2023. The order passed by the Secretary, State Transport Authority was assailed by the present petitioner as well as respondent No.3. The present petitioner assailed the said order on the ground that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 05-08- 2023 14:49:21 3 vehicle bearing registration No.MP-28-ZB-9936 which is owned by respondent No.3, is of the year 2022, but it was projected that the vehicle was of the year 2023.
3. It is averred in the petition that the sitting capacity of the vehicle of the respondent No.3 was 53 in all and whereas the sitting capacity of the petitioner's vehicle was 56 in all. It is further asserted that the authority did not consider the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Patiala Bus Service Vs. STAT & Ors. reported in AIR 1974 SCC 117. There were certain aspects which were required to be considered by the Secretary, State Transport Authority, however, the Secretary, State Transport Authority proceeded to pass the order dated 16/05/2023. The order dated 16/05/2023 was assailed by the present petitioner by filing an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Respondent No.3 also assailed the said order while confining his grievance as regards timing as well as stoppage on the route. Therefore, the order dated 16/05/2023 was assailed by the petitioner in totality whereas respondent No.3 chose to assail the same only on the ground that the stoppage between route were not clarified and timing was also not fixed. Both the appeals were heard together by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and decided by the common order which is contained in Annexure P/11.
4. The appeal preferred by the petitioner registered vide appeal No.66/2023 has been partly allowed and the appeal preferred by respondent No.3registered vide appeal No.69/2023 has also been partly allowed. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal while partly allowing the appeal of the present petitioner has declined to interfere with the order dated 16/05/2023 but observed that for future period, the rejection of petitioner's application for grant of temporary permit and the acceptance of temporary permit in favour of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 05-08- 2023 14:49:21 4 respondent No.3 shall not prevail upon the State Transport Appellate Tribunal while considering the application for grant of temporary permit for any period in future. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal while passing the order on appeal No.69/2023 further observed that for the future period, the order also deal with the timing as well as the stoppage at the route for which the permission would be sought to ply the vehicle. Thus assailing the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 20/06/203 (Annexure P/11) this petition has been filed by the present petitioner Smt. Reena Chachda and connected petition i.e MP No.3518/2023 filed by respondent No.3.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order passed by the Secretary, State Transport Authority as well as State Transport Appellate Tribunal deserves quashment in view of the ground that there is failure on the part of Secretary, State Transport Authority to consider the specific ground that the making year of the vehicle of respondent No.3 was 2022 and not 2023. It is further contended by the counsel that the Secretary, State Transport Authority was obliged to carry out comparative analysis of merit of respective claim of the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 inasmuch as the sitting capacity of petitioner's vehicle was 56 in all and sitting capacity of respondent No.3's vehicle was 53 in all. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Patiala Bus Service (Supra) this aspect was required to be taken note of by the Secretary, State Transport Authority while passing the impugned order dated 16/05/2023. Learned counsel contends that unfortunately this fact was not even taken note of by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal despite the specific ground in the memorandum of appeal and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the appeal Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 05-08- 2023 14:49:21 5 without taking into consideration the said aspect of the matter.
6. It is contended by the counsel that the entire order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal does not deal with the petitioner's stand regarding making of respondent No.3's vehicle and also its sitting capacity. Learned counsel while taking this Court to paragraph 14 and 15 of the memorandum of appeal submits that the specific grounds taken recourse to in appeal have not been considered by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel has also submitted that in terms of the order contained in Annexure P/5 dated 26/05/2023, respondent No.3 was required to lift the permit within a period of seven days in terms of condition No.10 incorporated in the order dated 16/05/2023, but the respondent No.3 did not lift the said permit and therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Gwalior Bench of this Court in WP No.20972/2022 (Satish Arora Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh ad Ors.) the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is presumption that when an order is passed that the person applying for temporary permit treated to be in the knowledge of the order, therefore, the same is required to be lifted within the period as stipulated in the order granting permit.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the present petition filed by the petitioner is grossly misconceived. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal has considered the all aspects of the matter while considering the eligibility of the vehicle of respondent No.3. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal having found that the Secretary, State Transport Authority did not commit any error while granting permit in favour of the respondent No.3 has declined to interfere with the same. Learned counsel for Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 05-08- 2023 14:49:21 6 respondent No.3 further contends that the petitioner's vehicle bearing registration No.MP-28-ZC-3463 is not in conformity with the provisions of Rules 164 of the Motor Vehicle Rules. It is further contended by the counsel that the petitioner was therefore rightly declined the temporary permit. It is also submitted by the counsel for respondent No.3 that he came in the knowledge of the order on 26/05/2023 which is evident from the note-sheet which has been brought on record as Annexure R/1 to the reply. Therefore, the ground regarding violation of condition No.10 of the order dated 16/05/2023 is misconceived.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the respondent filed an appeal assailing the order dated 16/05/2023 only on the ground that the same does not stipulate the timing as well as stoppage on the route and therefore, assailing the said part of the order, respondent No.3 filed an appeal which has been declined by the Court below. It is contended by the counsel that in terms of his application which is contained in Annexure P/4 the respondent had disclosed the proposed stoppage on the route and therefore, the mentioning of timing in the order was sine qua non while passing the order dated 16/05/2023. Learned counsel also contends that the Secretary, State Transport Authority did not mention the stoppage during the route, therefore, this aspect was required to be taken note of by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, but unfortunately, the appeal preferred by the respondent No.3 has also been dismissed by the impugned order which is being assailed in the connected petition i.e MP No.3518/2023.
10. No other point is pressed by the parties.
11. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 05-08- 2023 14:49:21 712. The record reflects that the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 applied for grant of temporary permit. The status of the vehicles of petitioner as well as respondent No.3 was taken into consideration by Secretary, State Transport Authority. The Secretary, State Transport Authority upon considering the merits of the applications submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.3 and another person Shri Somil Jaiswal, considered the sitting capacity of the vehicle and found respondent No.3's vehicle to be eligible for grant of temporary permit. The Secretary, State Transport Authority thus rejected the application of the petitioner and granted permission to the private respondent for plying the vehicle on the route Chhindwara to Nagpur (four rounds per day). As per the order, the permit is to remain valid till 31/08/2023. The said order also contains as many as 15 conditions which have been incorporated at the bottom of the order. The condition No.10 stipulates that the temporary permit is so accorded is required to be lifted by the concerned applicant within a period of seven days. Firstly, in order to deal with this issue, it is important to take note of the reply filed by the respondent. Along with the reply, respondent No.3 has brought on record copy of the note-sheets which are contained in Annexure R/3. A perusal of the note sheet (Annexure R/1) reveals that respondent No.3 came to know about passing of the order, on 26/05/2023 which is evident from the signatures of the parties at the margin of the order, therefore, the objection pertaining to lifting of the permit within a seven days, in the considered view of this Court, is misconceived.
13. So far as the ground pertaining to inter se suitability of vehicles of the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 is concerned, the authority while passing the order dated 16/05/2023, considered the aspect of sitting capacity of Signature Not Verified the vehicle and found the vehicle of respondent No.3 to be more suitable.
Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 05-08- 2023 14:49:21 8Though the Authority has not dealt with the aspect of the matter pertaining to existence of two doors in the vehicle of the petitioner in terms of Section 164 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, however second last paragraph of the order passed by the Secretary, State Transport Authority deals with the sitting capacity of both the vehicles. The Appellate Authority while considering both the appeals preferred by the petitioner as well as respondent No.3, has reserved liberty with both the parties to take recourse to their respective objection while applying for temporary permit in future. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal has further observed that rejection of the petitioner's application for permit and acceptance of respondent No.3's application will not have any bearing on the future applications which are to be moved by the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 for grant of temporary permit. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal has also observed that in future while granting temporary permit, the decision regarding timing and stoppage would also be taken by the RTA.
14 Section 87 of the Motor Vehicle Act, lays down that RTA while considering the applications for storage carriage permit will have regard to the various aspects which prima facie focus on the convenience of the public at large. Section 87 of the Mote Vehicle Act or any of the provisions under the Motor Vehicle Act or the Rules made thereunder, nowhere provides that a vehicle which is latest in make or manufacture would only be granted permit. Undisputedly, the vehicle should be in maintained condition and should also ensure convenience to the travelers. Therefore, even if the vehicle of respondent No.3 was of the year 2022 and not for the year 2023, the said ground could not have deprived respondent No.3 from grant of Temporary Permit. It is not the case of the petitioner that the vehicle of respondent No.3 is not suitable or in a Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 05-08- 2023 14:49:21 9 dilapidated condition or unfit for plying. So far as sitting capacity of the vehicle is concerned, the said aspect has been dealt with by the Secretary, State Transport Authority while passing the impugned order. The permit by now has remained in operation for 28 days more, therefore, at this stage, any interference with the order impugned or the Appellate order would unnecessarily create complications and will also result in multiplicity of the litigations. As the period provided for the temporary permit is coming to an end, the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 shall be at liberty to move their respective future applications for grant of the same and the said applications shall be dealt with by the Secretary, State Transport Authority in terms of observations made by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 20/06/2023.
15. Accordingly, both the petitions stand dismissed.
16. No order as to cost.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE Astha Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 05-08- 2023 14:49:21