Chandrahas Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 19.02.2020, (Ann. P-5 & P-6) passed by the respondent no. 2, by which the respondent no. 3 has been granted temporary permit to ply the bus on the road Gadarwara to Sagar via Hirapur, Tendukheda, Sahajpur, Kesali, Gourjhamar and Surkhi with return trip.

It is submitted that the petitioner owns a Stage Carriage Permit bearing No. CP-03/16-17. Earlier the respondent no. 2 had granted temporary permit to the respondent no. 3 on the same route with same timing for the month of December 2019. The said temporary permit was challenged by the petitioner by filing Revision No. 327/2019 before the M.P. State  Transport Tribunal, Moti Mahal, Gwalior. The said  revision was  allowed by the Tribunal by order dated  23.12.2019 and the temporary permit granted in favour of the respondent no. 3 was set aside. The order of the tribunal was challenged by respondent no. 3 by filing M.P. No. 6930 of 2019. Initially an interim order was passed in favour of respondent no. 3. However, after expiry of the permit, the petition became infructuous. As a consequence thereof M.P. No. 6130/2020 was dismissed as infructuous by order dated 10.2.2020. Again the respondent no. 3 filed another application for grant of temporary permit on the aforesaid route with same timing and vide order dated 20.1.2020, the temporary permit granted by the respondent no.2. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. No. 2783/2020 and the said writ petition was allowed and the order granting temporary permit to the respondent no. 3 was quashed.

It is submitted that thereafter once again the respondent no. 3 filed another application on 13.2.2020 for grant of Stage Carriage Permit on the route  from Gadarwara to Sagar via Bhama, Tendukheda, Sahajpur, Kesali and  Gourjhamar with return trip. The application filed by the respondent no. 3  was considered by the respondent no. 2 and  by order dated 18.2.2020 a temporary permit has been granted to the respondent no. 3 without determining the specific need and without considering the fact that how many vehicles are required on the full road.

It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 has passed an order only to give privilege to the  respondent no. 3, which is against the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Jaideep Travells and another Vs. State of M.P. and others passed in Writ Petition No.11580/2011, decided on 20.7.2011.

It is further submitted that the timing granted to the respondent no. 3 is fifteen minutes ahead of the regular stage permit of the petitioner, which is in direct clash with the financial interest of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tansukhlal Talati Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal reported in I.L.R. (2012), M.P. 1872 has held that while fixing the timings, the Transport Authority should as far as possible avoid grant of just ahead timings and should not grant identical timings to the temporary permits with the timings of the existing operators holding permanent permits.

It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that on Gadarwara to Sagar route, initially the petitioner was having one permanent permit and one temporary permit and now the temporary permit has been granted to the respondent no. 3 also.

Per contrary, it is submitted by counsel for the respondent no. 3 that according to the petitioner himself, he was enjoying the monopoly of plying a bus on Gadarwara Sagar routes, via Shahajpur Kesali and it is well established principles of law that while deciding the question of grant of permit, the monopoly of the big operators is not to be protected and the respondent no. 2 while granting the temporary permit in favour of the respondent no. 3 has considered that because of temporary increase in the number of passengers due to various festivals as well as agricultural activities and the marriage season, it is necessary to issue temporary permit. Thus, it is submitted that all the aspects have been taken note of by the respondent no. 2.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

This Court in the case of Shri Gurinder Singh Atwal Vs. State of M.P. and others passed in M.P. No. 4391 of 2018, (Gwalior) decided on 20.12.2018 has held as under :-

"2. Locus standi of the respondent no.3 to object to grant of regular permit

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Mohd.Ansar (Anwar) Vs. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others by order dated 13-12-2018 passed in MP No. 722 of 2018 has held as under : -

"In the case at hand, it is observed that respondents No. 3 and 4 were not the applicants for the route for which petitioner applied; but were operating over part of said route. And though objections were raised in respect of the locus of respondents no. 3 and 4 to challenge the grant of permit (which is evident from averments in paragraph 1 of the written submissions), the Tribunal did not avert to the same, there is no finding to that effect in the impugned order.

In view whereof and taking note of the law laid down in Mohd. Ibrahim (Supra) Munnawar Jahan Begum (Smt.) (Supra) and E. Rama Rao (Supra), there remains no iota of doubt that the respondents No. 3 and 4 had no locus to question the grant of Stage Carriage Permit in favor of the petitioner. It was incumbent upon the Tribunal to have dismissed the revisions on said ground alone.

The Tribunal, in the considered opinion of this Court, grossly erred in entertaining the revisions."

It is submitted by the Counsel for the respondent no.3, that the judgment passed in the case of Mohd. Ansar(Anwar) (Supra) is per- incurium, as it has not taken note of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kalim Mohd. Vs. S.T.A.T. (Supra).

Considered the submissions of the parties. The undisputed fact is that the respondent no. 3 is not the co- applicant for grant of regular permit, but is a part route operator.

The Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg Vs. U.O.I. reported in AIR 1992 SC 443 has held as under :-

''15.The petitioners have further contended that the conditions of roads, social status, of the applicants, possibility of small operators being eliminated by big operators, conditions of hilly routes, fuel availability and pollution control are some of the important factors which the Regional Transport Authority is bound to take into consideration while taking a decision on an application for grant of permit. These are the matters which are supposed to be within the comprehension of the transport authorities. The legislative  policy  under  the Act  cannot  be challenged on these grounds. It is not disputed that the Regional Transport Authority has the power under the Act to refuse an application for grant of permit by giving reasons. It is for the authority to take into consideration all the relevant factors at the time of quasi-judicial consideration of the applications for grant of permits. The statutory authorities under the Act are bound to keep a watch on the erroneous and  illegal  exercise  of  power  in  granting permits under the liberalized policy.''

This Court in the case of Kalim Mohd (Supra), after relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg (Supra) has held as under :-

"It is clear from our decision in M.P. No. 730/93 and M.P. No. 969/93 while deciding those cases this Court heavily relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg V. U.O.I. (AIR 1992 SC 443) wherein the reason for affording hearing to concerned persons was stated to be the necessity of some one to inform the tribunal deciding grant of permit about the condition of roads, social status of the applicant, possibility of small operators being eliminated by big operators, conditions of hilly routes, fuel availability and pollution control etc., so taht the tribunals are able to decide the grant or refusal of permit on objections received. It is for this reason that we held that the rivals in the trade, competitors would be able to assist the tribunals in this matter by raising objections and being heard........ (emphasis supplied)

Thus, it is clear that objections can be raised with regard to condition of roads, social status of the applicant, possibility of small operators being eliminated by big operators, conditions of hilly routes, fuel availability and pollution control etc.,"

Thus, it is clear that before granting a temporary permit the respondent no. 2 is required to consider the aspects as pointed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg Vs. U.O.I. reported in AIR 1992,  SC, 433.  If the order passed by the respondent no. 2 is tested on the anvil of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg Vs. U.O.I., (supra), it is clear that the respondent no. 2 has taken note of the temporary increase in the number of passengers due to agricultural activities, marriage  season, local fates, festivals etc. and that is why the  respondent no. 2 has decided to grant  temporary permit to the respondent no. 3. So far as contention of the petitioner that  the respondent no. 3 has  been granted temporary permit  to ply a bus just 15  minutes ahead  of the permanent permit granted to the petitioner is concerned, Article 19 of the Constitution of India does not provide for monopoly of trade in favour of an individual. Furthermore, it can not be said that due to temporary permit just ahead of fifteen minutes of the permanent permit of the petitioner, there would be any clash in the operation of the buses. The petitioner has shown concern about the safety of the passengers, therefore, it is hoped and believes that while plying the buses, the petitioner would avoid any race between buses and would not put the lives of the passengers in jeopardy. Since, the petitioner is not a  co-applicant for grant of temporary permit and has a limited right to challenge  the  temporary permit granted to the respondent no.3 and the respondent no. 2 has already taken note of all the aspects before granting temporary permit to ply the buses as well as the fact that initially only two buses were being plied on Gadarwara Sagar road, via Tendukheda, Kesali, this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 19.2.2020 passed by the respondent no. 2  does not call for any interference.

The petition fails and  is hereby dismissed.