Pawan Nayak vs State of M.P.

Heard.

The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dt. 24.1.2014 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT), Gwalior in Revision No. 359/2012. By the aforesaid order, the Tribunal upheld the order dt. 22.11.2011 passed by the Regional Transport Authority.

The petitioner was granted two permanent permits vide order dt. 22.11.2011 from Rehli to Devri via Chandpur, Kopra and from Devri to Gadhakata via Chandpur, Kopra, two single trip daily.

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was granted two permanent permits on a single vehicle. The aforesaid fact has been mentioned by the STAT in para 19 of the impugned order. The Tribunal noted the fact that the petitioner was granted one permit from Rehli to Devri via Chandpur, Kopra, distance 35 km. and another permit and from Devri to Gadhakata via Chandpur, Kopra, distance 53 km. on a single vehicle. The Tribunal further observed that because the distance of the permits is short, hence, there is no illegality in granting two permanent permits on a single vehicle.

This Court in W.P. No. 1756/2014 (Vijay Bajaj Vs. State of M.P. and others) vide order dt. 1.5.2014 has considered the question of law that whether two permits can be granted against the single vehicle in view of provisions of Rule 70 of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 and has held as under:-

(4) Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the provisions contemplated under the Act as well as Rules, this court is of the considered view that the orders impugned are not sustainable in the eyes of law. In the case of Vivek Dwivedi (supra), it was clearly laid down that one application is confined only to one permit for a single route as single permit for two different routes is not permissible.

(5) Similarly in Writ Petition No. 9382/12 (Sita Devi Mange Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal & others) it was held by this court vide order dated 11/3/14 as under:-

Rule 72(3) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred Rules of 1994) prescribes that an application of stage carriage permit shall be accompanied by certain documents and one of the condition is of certificate of registering authority in regard to ownership of vehicle of the applicant.

Relevant rule is as under:-

(b) certificate from Registering Authority containing make, model and seating capacity of the vehicles owned by the applicant at the time of making the application:

From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that an person must be the owner of the vehicle. It means that if a person files two separate applications for two permits, then he must be the owner of two vehicles because one vehicle could not be covered under both the permits.

(6) Therefore, in our considered view the impugned permit (Annexure-P/3) granted in favour of respondent No. 3 Karan Singh for plying single Bus bearing registration No. MP34 P-0138 on two separate routes is bad in law.

In view of the law laid down by his court, in our opinion, two permanent permits could not be granted against single vehicle.

Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dt. 24.1.2014 passed by the STAT in Revision No. 359/2012 (Annexure P/1) so also the order dt. 22.11.2011 passed by the Regional Transport Authority (Annexure P/2) in regard to grant of two permits in favour of respondent No. 3 are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No. 2 with direction that the respondent No. 3 could be granted one permit. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 3 shall be permitted to ply on one permanent permit route of his choice subject to passing the fresh order. The order be complied with within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

With the aforesaid, petition is disposed of.

No order as to costs.