Mohammad Mustakeem vs State of M.P. and Others

None appears for respondents No. 3 and 4 even after service of notice because they refused to take notice as per the report attached in the file. This petition has been filed against the order, Annexure P/1, dated 30th August, 2013 passed by the STAT. The petitioner was granted regular stage carriage permit No. 14/06 from Ujjain to Jhabua. The permit was valid upto 4.11.11. On the aforesaid permit, vehicle No. MP09 GE 5919 2005 model having sitting capacity of 32+2 was covered. He submitted an application for renewal of aforesaid permit on 29.9.2011 and proposed to cover the same vehicle which was covered earlier.

The respondents No. 3 and 4 made an objection in regard to renewal of permit on the ground that in accordance with the notification dated 24.11.10 a vehicle having sitting capacity of 50+2 can be covered under the permit and because the petitioner proposed a vehicle having sitting capacity of 32+2, hence, his permit cannot be renewed. The authority rejected the application on the aforesaid ground. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the STAT, that has also been dismissed on the ground that in accordance with the notification dated 24.11.10 a vehicle having sitting capacity of 50+2 can be covered under the permit and because the petitioner proposed a vehicle having sitting capacity of 32+2 at the time of submitting the application, hence, the permit of the petitioner cannot be renewed.

The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has another vehicle of sitting capacity of 50+2 and that vehicle can be covered under the aforesaid permit. The petitioner made a plea in this regard in his appeal which was filed before the STAT, but that point has not been considered by the authority.

The question that whether a person has to submit the details of the vehicle which was offered by him to operate on the road in the application or he has a liberty to change the same at the time of passing of the order, has been considered by this Court in Padam Chand Gupta v. State Transport Authority W.P. No. 5125/13 after relying the Full Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in E.I. Narayanan and Others Vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Trichur and Others, and two judgments of Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board Transport Corporation Vs. Mangrulpir Jt. Motor Service (P) Ltd., and Others, and Esskey Roadways (Firm) Vs. Anandhakrishnan Bus Service, .

This Court in Padam Chand Gupta (supra) has held as under:--

The question that whether an application for stage carriage permit could be rejected on the ground that the particulars of the vehicle being used for the services were not mentioned at the time of submitting the application has been considered by the Full Bench of Kerala High Court in E.I. Narayanan and Others Vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Trichur and Others, . Full Bench has held as under:--

An application for grant of a stage carriage permit cannot be treated as invalid merely on the ground that it does not contain particulars of the vehicle proposed to be used for the service nor can the applicant be disqualified or excluded from consideration on the said ground. If all other qualifications are equal as between two applicants, one of whom had furnished in his application the particulars of his vehicle and the other hand furnished such particulars only at a later stage before the mater was taken up for consideration by the Regional/State Transport Authority and the vehicle offered by the latter is found to be of a later model and better quality (providing better comforts for the passengers) than the vehicle offered by the former, the Regional/State Transport Authority will be perfectly justified in taking the view that it will be in the public interest to grant the permit to the applicant who has offered the better vehicle. However, if in such a case the vehicles offered by both the applicants are found to be substantially of the same type, quality, model etc. and if in respect of other matters both the applicants are equally qualified it will be open to the Regional/State Transport Authority in its discretion to prefer for the grant the applicant who had furnished the particulars of his vehicle in the application itself treating the said circumstance as a ground for treating the said circumstance as a ground for tilting the balance as between the two persons whose qualifications are equal in all other respects.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board Transport Corporation Vs. Mangrulpir Jt. Motor Service (P) Ltd., and Others, has held as under in this regard:--

The High court was in error on the second question in holding that the Regional Transport Authority would have to consider the respective qualifications of the applicants as on the date of their applications and not as on the date of the actual consideration by the applications for the grant of permit.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Esskey Roadways (Firm) Vs. Anandhakrishnan Bus Service, has held as under in regard to consideration of relevant date on which the respective claims of the candidates have to be considered for grant of permit:--

Another circumstance arose in Dhani Devi v. Sant Bihari case was that when one of the applicants before the W.P. consideration died and his L.Rs. were brought on record. When it was questioned, this Court held that the L.Rs. are entitled to be considered as inhering the estate of the deceased applicant for grant of permit. In A.S. Jalaluddin v. Balasubramania Bus Service (P) Ltd., the question arose that whether the applicant who secured the residential qualification by establishing a branch office at one of the terminus of the route would be considered eligible as on the date of the consideration. This Court held that he is entitled. In view of these considerations, it must be held that the date of consideration is the relevant date for the purpose of considering the eligibility to grant the required marks u/s 46 of Act 4 of 1939. This law being in operation from 1970, we do not think that it requires any reconsideration by this Court by a larger Bench. Accordingly, we hold that the date of consideration is the relevant date on which the respective claims of the candidates have to be considered for award of the marks for grant of permit. It is made clear that this declaration of law is confined to and peculiar of the statutory operation u/s 46 of Act 5 of 1958.

It is clear from the above judgments that an applicant has to fulfill qualification required in the rule and in regard to availability of the vehicle at the time of passing of the order by the Regional Transport Authority.

The Court has held that applicant has to fulfill the qualification required in the rule and in regard to availability of the vehicle at the time of passing of the order by the Regional Transport Authority. The petitioner offered another vehicle No. MP09 FA 1909 of 2008 model having sitting capacity of 50+2 which can be covered after renewal of the permit. In our opinion, the same facts have been mentioned by the petitioner in his appeal memo and also in the order dated 1.7.13 passed by the STAT, hence, in such circumstances, it was obligatory on the part of the Renewing Authority to consider the aforesaid fact at the time of passing of the order of renewal. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure P/1 passed by the STAT dated 30th August, 2013 and the order passed by RTA Annexure P/5 are quashed. The matter is remanded back to the RTA to consider the application of the petitioner for renewal afresh in accordance with the observations made by this Court. No order as to costs.