Ripusudan Singh Tomar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

1,Deluxe / Air,"not less than 35+2 seats*[including] conditioned

Bus driver and conductor

2,Express Bus,"not less than 45+2 seats, *[including] driver and

conductor

3,Ordinary Bus,"not less than 50+2 seats, *[including] driver and

conductor

Shri Sunil Jain, learned Sr. counsel has pointed out that sub-clause (1-b) has been inserted in the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 w.e.f. 28/12/2015,",,

according to which, the provision of sub-rule (1), as it relates to the stage carriage registered before the coming into force of said sub-rule, shall not",,

apply. Learned Authority, before passing of the order under sub-rule (1-a)(iii) of the Rules, did not examine the provision of sub-rule (1-b), by which,",,

provision of sub-rule (1-a) of the Rules, has been excluded for the vehicle registered before coming into force of the said rule. Sub-rule (1-a) came",,

into statute w.e.f 24/11/2010 and the vehicle bearing registration 3 no. UP-41-T-1173 manufactured in the year 2002 and registered on 22/03/2002.,,

Admittedly, the provision of sub-rule (1-a) of the Rules, would not apply to the petitioner, hence the impugned order is hereby set aside.",,

Present petition stands allowed accordingly.â€​,,

(4) The aforesaid order was further considered in the case of M.P.No.3423/2020 (Shreeram Sharma Vs. the State of M.P. and another) and the,,

Court has held as under:,,

“Section 72 of Motor Vehicles Act does not authorize the Regional Transport Authority to amend Rules. If the Rules are silent on any aspect, then",,

the Regional Transport Authority by incorporating some condition can grant or review permit. But by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that",,

Section 72 of Motor Vehicles Act confers unfettered right on Regional Transport Authority to amend Rules itself. When Rule 77 (1b) of Rules of,,

1994 itself provides that amended provision of Rule 77 (1a) of Rules of 1994 would not be applicable to the stage carriage which was registered much,,

prior to coming into force of said Rule, then Regional Transport Authority was at fault in deferring the application filed by the petitioner for renewal of",,

permit of bus bearing registration No.M.P-33-E-0199.â€​,,

(5) It is submitted that once the controversy has already been settled by this Court and it is held that the policy will not be applicable in case of the,,

vehicles which are registered prior to implementation of the policy. In such circumstances, the imposition of a condition is apparently bad in law and",,

against the dictum passed by this Court in the aforesaid cases.,,

(6) Per contra counsel for the respondent/State could not dispute the fact that this Court has already considered the aforesaid issue in the case of,,

Waheed Khan (supra) and Shreeram Sharma (supra) and submit that the petition be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid orders.,,

(7) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.,,

(8) The aforesaid aspect was already considered by this Court in the case of Waheed Khan (supra) and Shreeram Sharma (supra) and the Court has,,

categorically held that the notification has no application to the vehicle registered prior to coming into force of the notification dated 24.11.2010. There,,

is already consideration made by this Court to the aforesaid aspect in the case of Waheed Khan (supra).,,

(9) Accordingly, the order dated 30.8.2018 passed in the case of Waheed Khan (supra) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case of the petitioner also.",,

(10) Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of. E-copy/Certified copy as per rules/directions.",,