Sheikh Ansar vs Shri Gurinder Singh Atwaal
2022 Latest Caselaw 2057 MP

                                    1
            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         W.A.No.306/2021
          (Sheikh Ansar Vs. Gurinder Singh Atwal & others)

Gwalior, Dated:-15.02.2022
     Mr. Arvind Dudawat with Mr. Santosh Agarwal and Mr. M.S.
Jadon, learned counsel for the appellant.
     Mr. N.K. Gupta, learned Senior counsel with Mr. Shailendra
Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents No.1.

Mr. Varun Kaushik, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.2 and 3/State.

Heard on I.A.No.3880/2021, this is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

As per office report, the appeal is barred by 359 days.

Explanations offered in the application are accepted.

Delay is condoned and I.A. is allowed.

2. Mr. N.K. Gupta, learned Senior counsel with Mr. Shailendra

Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, at the first instance,

submits that this writ appeal is, in fact, rendered infructuous as the

stage carriage permit in question granted on 29.10.2015 for five years

has come to an end and the part route permit of the appellant/objector

has also expired, therefore, no useful purpose would be served while

dealing with the appeal on merit.

3. However, Mr. Dudawat made an unusual insistence to decide

the appeal on merits irrespective of the aforesaid factual status.

4. We therefore have taken up the appeal for the decision on

merits.

5. This intra-court appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.A.No.306/2021 (Sheikh Ansar Vs. Gurinder Singh Atwal & others)

Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam,

2005 is directed against the order dated 20.12.2018 passed in

W.P.No.4391/2018.

6. The facts relevant for disposal of this case in nut-shell are that

respondent No.1 has been granted stage carriage permit vide order

dated 29.10.2015 (Annexure P-3) for a period of five years, expired

on 24.11.2020. The respondent No.1 had applied for stage carriage

permit before the Regional Transport Authority for route Bhopal to

Udaipur via Khargon, Bareli and Badi and for return trip everyday.

Primarily two-fold objections were raised viz route had not been

described from Bhopal to Udaipura in the application and the

applicant did not have alternative stage carriage with no tax dues. The

Regional Transport Authority (for short "RTA") in its order dated

29.10.2015 (Annexure P/3) has given the details of complete route

with timings in tabular form, as applied for in the application. It has

been found that the applicant satisfied the requirement in conformity

with the notifications dated 24.11.2010 and 10.02.2014 in compliance

of Rule 72(3) of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994. Upon due

consideration, the RTA by a self contained explanatory order granted

stage carriage permit, as per the time schedule prescribed under

Clause 5 of the order.

7. It is relevant to mention that the appellant did not hold the stage

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.A.No.306/2021 (Sheikh Ansar Vs. Gurinder Singh Atwal & others)

carriage permit for the route from Bhopal to Udaipura and is also a

defaulter in payment of tax dues for stage carriages plying on other

routes. However, he raised an objection against grant of permit before

the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for brevity "STAT") by filing a

revision. Appellant raised objections to the effect that the application

for grant of stage carriage permit did not specify the complete route

and whether respondent No.1 had alternative vehicle with no tax

dues. STAT has dealt with the objections in para-21 and para-22 of its

order dated 25.08.2018 (Annexure P-1). In para-21, the Tribunal

appears to have held that more particulars of the route were not

provided for when the application was originally submitted. The

Tribunal also found in para-19 that the particulars of the alternative

vehicle were not mentioned. However, the amendment was made

thereto before hearing of the application. Besides, the Tribunal has

also held that the objector should be given an opportunity on such

amendment being made in the application.

8. Being aggrieved by the order of STAT, the respondent No.1

preferred W.P.No.4391/2018, inter-alia contending that once the

petitioner has made amendment in his original application giving

more details of route from Bhopal to Udaipura before the date of

hearing given by the STAT, the STAT has fallen in error having held

that the application did not have complete details of route and

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.A.No.306/2021 (Sheikh Ansar Vs. Gurinder Singh Atwal & others)

opportunity was not afforded to the objectors, as objectors had

sufficient opportunity to raise objection before STAT. That apart,

learned counsel also appears to have submitted before the writ court

that the petitioner himself does not have a regular route stage carriage

permit for the same route from Bhopal to Udaipura with description

of route prescribed in the application and therefore the objection at

the instance of such person is not maintainable.

9. Learned Single Judge has dealt with the objections raised

against the grant of stage carriage permit by the appellant and found

that the appellant had no regular permit for the route of Bhopal to

Udaipura. Therefore, as a matter of fact, he has no locus standi to

raise the objections that too of the nature of timings which are not

consistent with the objects of the Act, as will adumbrated by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg vs. UOI

reported in AIR 1992 SC 443, para-15. Hence, the learned Single

Judge found that the appellant did not have the locus standi to raise

such objections and consequently set aside the order of STAT.

10. Mr. Arvind Dudawat with Mr. Santosh Agarwal and Mr. M.S.

Jadon learned counsel while taking exception to the impugned order

tried to make a vain attempt while contending that the impugned

order is pregnable on facts and law. According to them, the appellant

even if did not hold regular permit for route of Bhopal to Udaipura,

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.A.No.306/2021 (Sheikh Ansar Vs. Gurinder Singh Atwal & others)

he had the locus standi to raise the objection with regards to the

timings of vehicles plying on that route, the description of the route

provided in the application and non-availability of alternative vehicle

with respondent No.1. Therefore, STAT was justified while setting

aside the order of the RTA.

11. Per contra, Mr. N.K. Gupta, learned Senior counsel with Mr.

Shailendra Gupta, learned counsel submits that regard being had to

the aims and objects of the M.P. Motor Vehicle Act 1988 (in short

"Act 1988"), the nature of objections raised at the instance of

appellant have rightly been found to be not maintainable by the

learned Single Judge. It is submitted that since the appellant himself

does not ply a bus on route as described in the amended application,

he should not have been heard. Moreso, despite opportunity available

before STAT, there was no further objection on the amended

application of the route from Bhopal to Udaipura. The STAT failed to

appreciate the aforesaid facts on record. That apart, the objections

related to the timing of the vehicle are obsolete after the advent of

1988 Act and have rightly not been countenanced by the RTA of

which no reference is made by the STAT. Even otherwise, the

appellant himself is a defaulter having not paid the complete tax dues

on other route where he is plying the bus and therefore he could not

have been a objector in the instant case. Learned Single Judge has

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.A.No.306/2021 (Sheikh Ansar Vs. Gurinder Singh Atwal & others)

dealt with the issue of locus standi relying upon the judgment dated

13.12.2018 in M.P.No.722/2018 sustaining the objections raised by

respondent No.1. That apart, learned Single Judge has also dealt with

the scope of objections which may be raised in the matter of grant of

permit. Since objection raised are found to be alien to the judgment of

Supreme Court, learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the

petition.

12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

13. The Act of 1988 has been enacted consolidating and amending

the law relating to motor vehicles and there is a remarkable departure

from the earlier Act particularly in the matter of grant of stage

carriage permit. The control, restrictions and regulations in earlier Act

are done away with in furtherance of its objects as contained in

objects and reasons of the Act inter alia providing simplification of

procedure and policy liberalizations for private sector operations in

the road transport field regard being had to the fast increase in

number of both commercial and personal vehicles in the country with

the greater flow of passengers (Emphasis Supplied). Section 80 of the

Act of 1988 talks of procedure in applying for and granting permits

and inter alia provides that an application for permit of any kind may

be made at any time and the prescribed authority shall not ordinarily

refuse to grant the permit so applied. Section 80 (1) provides for

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.A.No.306/2021 (Sheikh Ansar Vs. Gurinder Singh Atwal & others)

procedure to make an application for permit of any kind at any time.

Subsection (2) thereof provides for consideration of application for

permit of any kind made at any time under the Act. Conjoint reading

of Sections 80 (1) and 80 (2) unambiguously provides for

consideration of application filed at any time or the application filed

at the time of consideration. There is no limit as regards number of

applications. Therefore, the objects for which the Motor Vehicle Act

1988 has been enacted converges to better facilities to the passengers

with quality vehicles, maintaining standards for anti-pollution control

devices and improve better road conditions. That apart, the amended

Act 1988 also ensures elimination of monopoly of one operator, and

encourage competition ensuring better facilities for public at large.

14. Upon reading of the order of STAT, we are of the considered

view that the Tribunal appears to have been oblivious of the aims and

objects as well as purpose of the amended Act 1988 while dealing

with the objections against grant of stage carriage permit to

respondent No.1. In all fairness, the objections against non-

description of details of the route ought to have been out-rightly

rejected, as besides description given in the original application

further better particulars were also provided before the STAT to which

there was no objection. In fact the STAT ignored the fact that

primarily the objection raised was only in the context of the timings

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.A.No.306/2021 (Sheikh Ansar Vs. Gurinder Singh Atwal & others)

of the vehicle at different points of stoppages for the route from

Bhopal to Udaipura. In fact, such objections are irrelevant after

amendment brought in the Act 1988 ,as the Act predominantly

encourages better quality of services for public at large giving

impetus to competition. Nevertheless, the appellant herein himself not

being the operator on the same route, therefore, had no locus standi to

raise an objection of the nature raised before the RTA in view of the

decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg

(supra) and the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case

of Kalim Mohd. Vs. STAT reported in 1994(1) MPWN 15.

15. The considerations for grant of stage carriage permit are

required to be in conformity with the objects of the Act which is

predominantly for ensuring better facilities to the passengers, greater

flow of passengers and freight with least impediments, concern for

road safety standards, and pollution control measures, simplification

of procedure and policy liberalizations for private sector operations in

the road transport field etc. In other words, the objections surrounding

inter se rivalry of two competitive operators on same route are no

more available after rationalization of certain definitions with

additions to certain new definitions of new type of vehicles.

16. Besides, appellant who himself is a defaulter and also not an

operator on the same route could not be said to be a person aggrieved

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.A.No.306/2021 (Sheikh Ansar Vs. Gurinder Singh Atwal & others)

to raise objection against grant of permit to the petitioner.

17. This Court therefore finds that the learned Single Judge did not

commit any illegality while setting aside the order of STAT and

allowing the petition.

18. Writ appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed with the cost of

Rs.5,000/-.

                          (Rohit Arya)                         (Satish Kumar Sharma)
                             Judge                                      Judge
bj/-


       BARKHA SHARMA
       2022.02.18
       16:38:44 +05'30'