Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santoshbai Chouhan vs Regional Transport Authority on 6 May, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 6 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 961 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SANTOSHBAI CHOUHAN W/O SHRI LAL SINGH
CHOUHAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS
OPERATOR HOUSE NO. 249, PIGDAMBAR, TEHSIL
MHOW, DISTT.- INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS MINI RAVINDRAN - ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT)
AND
1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY DISTT.
INDORE M. P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. R.D. CONSTRUCTIONS THROUGH DILIP PATEL
S/O SHRI RADHESHYAM PATEL 282, BHAWANI
ROAD, SANAWAD BARWAH, DISTRICT
KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Gajendra Singh
passed the following:
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.
2. This appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya(Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed being
aggrieved by the order dated 08.04.2024, passed in W.P. No.3861/2024
whereby, the writ appellant has unsuccessfully challenged the order dated
31.01.2024 (Annexure-P-1) passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Indore
granting temporary permit for Indore to Omkareshwar route in favour of
respondent No.2, R.D. Constructions till 31.05.2024 in two trips.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the writ appellant is a registered
owner of stage carriage bearing registration No. MP 09-FA-7431 and is having a
regular stage carriage permit No. 15/2018/Indore for the route Omkareshwar to
Indore via Mortakka, Badwah, Simrol and the permit is valid till 05.09.2028.
The respondent No.2 applied for grant of temporary permit from 23.11.2023 to
31.01.2024 without specifying the temporary need and without filing the relevant
documents as provided under Rule 164 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules,
1989 and it was also not disclosed that the timing sought by respondent No.2
would clash with the timings of the petitioner and despite the objections having
been filed by the petitioner, the application filed by respondent No.2 for grant
of temporary permit was allowed by the respondent No.1 vide order dated
05.12.2023. Thereafter, respondent No.2 again applied for grant of temporary
permit till 31.05.2024, and again without considering the objections filed by the
petitioner, the application was allowed by the impugned order dated 31.01.2024
and being aggrieved by the same the writ appellant filed a Writ Petition No.
3861 of 2024 and vide order dated 08.04.2024 the writ petition was dismissed
by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
4. Challenging the order of Single Bench in Writ Petition No. 3861 of
2024 dated 08.04.2024, this Writ Appeal has been preferred on the ground that
learned writ Court did not consider the fact that fixing of timing of a temporary
permit just head of permanent permit is contrary to the dictum of law laid down
in the Division Bench judgment of Tansukhlal Talati V.s State Transport
Appellate Tribunal reported in ILR (2012) MP 1872. The writ Court did
not consider the decision in Padamchand Gupta Vs. State Transport
Authority and others reported in 2014(1) MPLJ 24 also, wherein the
Division Bench has categorically stated that the timings so fixed by the Road
Transport Authority exercising its power to act reasonably, so that all the
persons are given the same benefits and some persons are not given the undue
benefits. The writ Court has given a wrong finding stating that a larger bus
would run the same distance at the same speed in more time as compared to a
smaller bus, therefore the order of Writ Court deserves interference of this
Hon'ble Court. The writ Court did not consider that the findings of respondent
No.2 are contrary to the directions issued in the matter of Vivek Dwivedi and
another Vs. Premnarayan and others reported in AIR 1999 MP 1 and
Tansukhlal Talati (supra). Writ Court also did not consider that the action
of grant of temporary permit without there being even a mention of what is the
temporary need in the application form of the respondent is bad in law. The
fulfillment of mandatory conditions as prescribed in Rule 125 H of Central
Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and Rule 164 of the MP Motor Vehicle Rule of
1994 are not satisfied and writ Court also ignored the law laid down in the case
o f Mithilesh Garg Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of India and others reported in
(1992) 1 SCC 168.
5. Heard at the admission stage.
6. Perused the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the writ Court and also
perused the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the Regional Transport
Authority, Indore .
7. Writ Court has considered the temporary permit granted in favour of
the respondent No.2 and the permanent permit granted in favour of writ
appellant and has rightly noted in Paragraph No-8 that there is no other
stoppage in between Omkareshwar to Indore in the impugned temporary permit,
whereas the permanent permit granted in favour of writ appellant vide order
dated 08.08.2018 (R-2) have five stoppages via Mortakka, Badwah, Balwada,
Baigram and Simrol and also noted that there is difference in capacity of
carriage covered by temporary permit i.e MP 10 P 1274 Model 2019 seating
capacity 50 + 2 and the capacity of the carriage covered by permanent permit
i.e MP 09-FA-7431 Model 2016 seating capacity 35 +2 (Deluxe) .
8. Considering these facts, the writ Court has rightly not found that the
time granted in favour of respondent No.2 has given undue advantage.
Otherwise also if we provide the fast service to passenger then he will attract the
more passengers in comparison to the operator, who provide services with
taking more time for the same distance. In the order dated 31.01.2024 there is a
satisfaction of the authority regarding presence of temporary need and that
satisfaction does not require further scrutiny and the objection before the
Regional Transport Authority (Annexure-P-6) was filed regarding the time only.
The dictum of Mithilesh Garg Etc. Etc. (supra) also does not favour Writ
appellant in which it is held that,
"More operators mean healthy competition and efficient
transport system. Over-crowded buses, passengers
standing in the aisle, persons clinging to the bus-doors and
even sitting on the roof-top are some of the common
sights in this country. More often one finds a bus which
has noisy engine, old upholstery, uncomfortable seats
and continuous emission of black smoke from the exhaust
pipe. It is, there- fore, necessary that there should be
plenty of operators on every route to provide ample
choice to the commuter-public to board the vehicle of
their choice and patronize the operator who is
providing the best service."
9. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the Writ Court.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
No order as to costs.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
rashmi
