Arif Khan vs State of M.P.

Heard.

The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dt. 24.4.2014 (Annexure P/10) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) in Revision No. 120/2013.

The petitioner submitted an application for grant of Stage Carriage Permit for the route Piparia to Bhopal via Sohagpur, Babai, Hoshangabad, Budhni, Mandideep, two single trip daily. It is an inter-regional route. Alongwith the application, the petitioner submitted road map, number of vehicle as M.P. 04/PA-0857, which shall be covered alongwith the permit and other documents. The Regional Transport Authority - respondent No. 3 granted permit in favour of the petitioner. Against the aforesaid order, respondent No. 4 filed a revision before the STAT. The Tribunal quashed the grant of permit on the ground that the petitioner was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of passing of the order of grant of permit or at the time of hearing.

Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the finding recorded by the STAT is against the law. The petitioner was the owner of the vehicle and the petitioner only entered into an agreement with a college - Cem College of Bhopal for providing vehicle for the purpose of transportation of staff and students of the college, hence, it could not be said that the petitioner was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of passing of the order for grant of permit.

A copy of the agreement has been filed as Annexure P/4. In accordance with the aforesaid agreement, the vehicle No. M.P. 04/PA-0857 of the petitioner was engaged for the purpose of transportation of students and staff from 11.5.2012 to 10.5.2014. Respondent No. 4 filed documents alongwith the return. In accordance with the aforesaid return, a lease was executed in favour of the college by the petitioner of the vehicle No. M.P. 04/PA-0857 and it was valid w.e.f. 17.5.2012 to 16.5.2014. Copy of the document-Form No. 34 is filed as Annexure R/1 with the return. The petitioner submitted an application for cancellation of lease and it was also registered in the register. Thereafter the agreement of lease was cancelled on 3.5.2013. The petitioner submitted application for cancellation of lease on 1.5.2013. The permit was granted in favour of the petitioner on 1.4.2013. It is clear from the aforesaid facts that on the date of granting permit, the vehicle No. M.P. 04/PA-0857 was leased out in favour of the college.

This court in Padam Chand Gupta Vs. State Transport Authority, has held as under after considering the Rule 72 (3)(b) of M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 that a person must be the owner of the vehicle at the time of passing of the order of grant of permit. The relevant findings of the court are as under:-

Respondent No. 2 had leased out his vehicle, which was proposed to be plied by him on the route in favour of the another person and it was covered by another permit up to 31.8.2012, thereafter it was released when the permit was surrendered before the RTA. The tax of the vehicle was also paid up to 31.8.2012. Hence, in our opinion, the respondent No. 2 did not fulfill the criteria having a vehicle at the time of passing of the order by R.T.A. for grant of permanent permit, hence, he was not eligible to receive the permit.

In the present case, the petitioner had leased out the vehicle in favour of Cem College of Bhopal, hence, at the time of passing of the order regarding grant of permit, the petitioner was not the owner of the vehicle. In such circumstances, STAT has rightly passed the order.

Consequently, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.