Dharmendra Singh vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal U.P.Lucknow & Ors.

M. Katju, J.—This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P. dated 2791995 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) and for a writ of certiorari to quash the resolution dated 14/1561993 passed by the State Transport Authority.

U.P. granting stage carriage permits to the respondents.

Heard Sri L.P. Naithani, learned Senior Advocate and Sri. A.D. Saunders for the petitioner, and Sri K.N. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate and Sri A.R. Dubey for the private respondents as well as learned standing Counsel for the respondents.

The facts of the case are that there is an interregional route known as Muzaffar NagarBhopa MornaBijnore route. A sketch map in this connection is Annexure1 to the writ petition. This route was earlier passing from Morana direct to Bijnore via a pontoon bridge at Rawli Ghat and it was notified under Section 68D (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 on 289 1977 published in the U.P. Gazette on 511 1977 True copy of the said notification is Annexure S.C.A. 3 to the supplementary counteraffidavit of Vishnu Datta Paliwal. A perusal of the said notification shows that existing operations were allowed to continue operating vide clause.4 of the said notification. The petitioners were existing operators since their permits were issued prior to 5111977 and hence then they continued to operate. Since the major portion of the route lies within Meerut region, it is the RTA Meerut region which is entitled to grant/renew the permits or the route.

It is alleged in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the RTA Meerut granted permits on the route by its resolution dated 491989 and 2191989 which were challenged before this Court in separate writ petitions which were allowed and such resolutions were quashed on the ground that the route is notified and as such the RTA had no jurisdiction to grant permits. It is alleged in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that the judgments were challenged in the Supreme Court which dismissed the SLP. Appeal on 2441991. In paragraph 7 it is alleged that the State Transport Authority granted permits on 2991989, but the same were set aside by the Tribunal.

In paragraph 12 of the writ petition it is alleged that by resolution dated 14/1561993, the State Transport Authority illegally granted 38 permanent stage carriage permits although the route was notified vide Annexure. 2 to the writ petition. In paragraph 16 of the writ petition it is stated that in view of the clear bar of Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 no such permits could have been legally granted. Aggrieved against the resolution ''the petitioner filed a revision before the respondent No. 1 which was dismissed on 2791995. Hence this petition.

Sri K.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable because as held by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated, 2791995the writ petitioners had not right for renewal of their permits and they had to apply for a fresh grant of permit as held by the Supreme Court in Gajraj Singh v. S.T.A.P., 1996 (8) JT 356. The petitioners'' permits were to expire in 1991 and they were renewed in 1991 after the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force. They were again renewed in 1996, and according to Sri K.N. Tripathi, the second renewal of 1996 is illegal. In my opinion, it is not open to the respondents to challenge the renewal of the petitioners permit at this late stage, and that too in collateral proceedings. Since nobody challenged the renewal of the petitioner''s permits in 1996 it is not open to challenge the same now. In fact till today to revision or appeal or writ petition has been filed against the renewal of the petitioner''s permit in 1996. In the absence of such direct challenge to the renewal of the petitioners'' permit, I am not inclined to entertain this objection in collateral proceedings. Hence the preliminary objection of Sri K.N. Tripathi is rejected.

Sri L, P. Naithani submitted that the earlier principle of permitting operation with corridor restrictions on notified routes had been invalidated by the Supreme Court in various decisions e.g. M/s. Adarsh Travels Bus Service and another v. State of U.P and others, AIR 1986 SC 319. On the route in question certain permits had been illegally granted and this was set aside by this Court in Har Pal Singh Beniwal v. Regional Transport Authority, Meerut and another, 1991 (18) ALR 9, and the SLP against the judgment had been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 2241991 vide Annexure SCA 5 to the supplementary counteraffidavit of Vishnu Datt Paliwal.

It appears that in 1995 a pucca bridge was constructed at Dewal Ghat and hence a notification dated 3994 was issued under Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 modifying Muzaffar Nagar Bijnore route and now the notified route is Bijnore to Mazaffar Nagar via JansathMeerapur Dewal instead of the route Bhopaand Morna. Atrue copy of the Gazette notification dated 3994 is Annexure SC A6 to the supplementary counteraffidavit of Vishnu Datta Paliwal.

A perusal of the impugned resolutiondated 14/1561993 Annexure2 to the writ petition shows that the permits have been granted to the respondents on the Muzaffar NagarChhajlet route via Ganga Bijnore Noorpur which is said to bea nonnationalised route. The submission of Sri Nathani is that part of this route is in fact nationalised and hence the impugWd resolution was illegal. On the other hand, the submission of Sri K.N. Tripathi is that the impugned resolution was valid because no part of the aforesaid route on which permits have been granted is nationalised.

It appears that at the time of the notification under Section 68D(3), dated 2881977 (published on 5111977) buses did not travel from Dewal to Bijnore because there was no pucca bridge at that time. The aforesaid notification hence had not notified the portion from Dewal to Bijnore, and hence this portion was not part of the notified route. It became part of the notified route only when the notification dated 391994 was published i.e. after the grant of grant of permits by the impugned resolution dated 14/1561993, and hence at the time when the permits were granted on 14/1561993 the portion from Dewal to Bijnore route was not part of the nationalised route. Hence in my opinion the impugned permits were validly granted.

This very controversy was decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6065 of 1996 Smt. Shashi Gael v. State and Ors., decided on 3041996 and the contention of the petitioner in that case, which is similar to the contention of the petitioners.in the present case, was rejected. Against that judgment an SLP was filed in the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 581996.

'' 12. In Manzoor Ahmad v. State, 1993(2) ALR 329, also a similar contention has been negatived by a learned Single Judge of this Court, It has been observed in paragraph 3 of the said judgment that it is undisputed that the snip from Dewal to Bijnore was not part of the routewhich was notified on 5111997. Similarly in paragraph 15 of the said judgment it was observed that the aforesaid patch from Dewal to Bijnore was noi the matter of consideration when the scheme was notified in 1977, and the corporation and not even objected against the grant of permits to petitioners and others on this nonnotified portion. Against this judgment in Manzoor Ahmad''s case (supra) also an SLP was filed in the Supreme Court which was rejected on 1051993.

No doubt the portion from Dewal to Bijnore was notified from 391994 but the impugned permits were granted much before that date. The point being pressed in this writ petition has already been decided by this Court in Smt. Shashi Gael''s case and Manzoor Ahmad''s case (supra) against which SLPs have been rejected by the Supreme Court. Hence this point cannot be agitated again. The decision inHarpal Singh Beniwal case (supra) is distinguishable because it relates to the MuzaffarnagarBhopaMornaBerha SadatDewal Bijnore route, most of which (except the portion from Dewal to Bijnore) was part of the original route notified on 51177. The petitioners'' route, on the other hand is MuzaffarnagarJansathMeerapurDewal BijnoreChajlet route, no part of which was notified up to 3994, and only the portion from Dewal to Bijnore was notified from 39 94, that is, after the issuance of the impugned permits.

Thus there is no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs.