AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
14 paragraphs · 573 wordsThis petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(अ) प्रतियाचिकाकर्तागणों आदेशित/निर्देशित किया जावे कि याचिकाकर्ता के विरूद्ध राज्य परिवहन अपीलीय अधिकरण के द्वारा जारी प्र.क्र. 312/2017 निगरानी में पारित आदेश दिनांक 19.08.2019 (एनेक्जर पी-1) में पारित आदेश स्थाई परमिट निरस्तीकरण का क्रियान्वयन, नवीन स्थाई परमिट जारी होने तक रोके जाने का आदेश पारित करें।
(ब) प्रतियाचिकाकर्तागणों को आदेशित किया जावे कि याचिकाकर्ता के हित में पूर्व में जारी स्थाई परमिट क्र. ैब्च्1174ध्ैजंहमध्2017 मार्ग नगरा से मुरैना ;त्ठैद्ध वाया पोरसा, अम्बाह एक वापसी फेरा प्रतिदिन (प्रकरण क्रं. 210/मुरैना/17 दिनांक 14.02.2017, एजेण्डे का सरल क्र. 15) के अनुसार नवीन परमिट जारी होने तक वाहन का संचालन किये जाने के आदेश पारित करें।
(स) अन्य कोई आदेश/निर्देश मान्नीय न्यायालय जो उचित समझे जारी किया जावे।"
It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that by order dated 19/8/2019 the STAT has set aside the permit granted to the petitioner and has remanded the matter back to the competent authority, however, more than two months have passed but the competent authority has not decided the question of grant of permit. It is further submitted that in compliance of order dated 19/8/2019 passed by STAT the petitioner has surrendered his permit as well as has parked the bus.
Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner has not challenged the validity of order dated 19/8/2019 passed by the STAT. He has merely sought that till the question of grant of permit is decided, the initial permit granted to the petitioner should be revived by staying the order dated 19/8/2019.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
During arguments, it is fairly conceded by the counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 19/8/2019 has been passed by the STAT in the light of the order dated 21/12/2017 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.4001/2017 and other writ petitions. The operative part of the order passed in Writ Petition No.4001/2017 reads as under:-
"In the result, impugned orders in all the cases whereby administrative officers were appointed as Regional Transport Authority are set aside. For the reasons stated above, temporary/regular permits and counter signature, etc. made by said private respondents are also set aside. However, this order will not come in the way of competent authorities to issue regular/temporary permits etc.
Learned counsel for the parties agreed that the applications/objections which were earlier decided by the impugned order may be treated as pending and competent authority may be directed to decide the same expeditiously.
In view of consensus arrived at, the competent authorities are directed to treat those applications as pending and decide the same expeditiously."
The order dated 19/8/2019 passed by the STAT is perfectly in accordance with the directions given by this Court in Writ Petition No.4001/2017. Once the regular permit granted by the Administrative Officers who are appointed as Regional Transport Authority has been set aside by this Court, then no fault can be found with the order of the STAT. Under these circumstances, when a regular permit which was beyond the competence of the authority was issued, then for all purposes it is a void order and, therefore, no direction can be given for keeping the order dated 19/8/2019 in abeyance till the application for grant of regular permit is decided.
Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.