[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Manoj Kumar Khandelwal vs Th Regional Transport on 16 December, 2025

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68682

1 MP-6940-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 16th OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 6939 of 2025
MANOJ KUMAR KHANDELWAL
Versus
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Brajesh Kumar Dubey - Advocate for petitioner.
Smt. Papiya Ghosh - Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1.
Shri Vikas Rathi - Advocate (through VC) and Shri Shikhar Jat -
Advocate for respondent/caveator.
WITH
MISC. PETITION No. 6940 of 2025
MANOJ KUMAR KHANDELWAL
Versus
TH REGIONAL TRANSPORT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Brajesh Kumar Dubey - Advocate for petitioner.
Smt. Papiya Ghosh - Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1.
Shri Rahul Rawat - Advocate for respondent/caveator.

ORDER

Both these cases are on identical grounds and are filed in the matter of the same permit, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from M.P. No.6939/2025.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68682

2 MP-6940-2025

2. The facts in brief for the purpose of disposal of present petition are that a permit was issued in favour of the present petitioner for the route Baktara to Indore and the said permit has been set aside by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ("STAT" for short) vide its order dated 18.11.2025 on the ground that the said route seems to have three termini in place of two termini because a route must have the bus running from one terminus to another but the route which has been sanctioned in favour of the present petitioner, has three termini and, therefore, the grant of permit is contrary to Section 2(38) of the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, set aside the permit.

3. The counsel for the petitioner had argued that the application for stage carriage permit was filed under Section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as per the said provision, the permit has to be granted for the route or

routes or the area or areas to which the application relates. It is contended that as per Section 72, at the time of grant of stage carriage permits, the authority has to specify the route on which the vehicle would ply and as per Section 68(3)(ca), the State Government has to formulate routes for plying stage carriages. It is, therefore, argued that once the route had been formulated by the State Transport Authority (S.T.A.) and the application of the petitioner for permit was on the formulated route, therefore, the STAT could not have interfered in the matter when the vehicle was running on the formulated route. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashis Kumar Jain vs. M.P. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and others , reported in 2010 (3) MPLJ 60 to argue that the permit can be granted for stage carriage on the complete

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68682

3 MP-6940-2025 formulated route which has been formulated as per the provisions of Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act of 1988.

4 . Per contra, it is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the vehicle has to run as per Section 2(38) of the Motor Vehicles Act between one terminus to another and if the vehicle has more than one termini, then such a permit is illegal, which contravenes the provisions of Section 2(38) which defines "route". Heavy reliance is placed on judgement of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.1440/2001 (Krishna Kumar vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal) and of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.73 of 1998 ( Vivek Dwivedi v. Prem Narayan) to contend that the vehicle cannot be run on a route having more than one termini. As to the route being formulated, it was stated that the route since had three termini, therefore, the petitioner ought to have taken two different permits, though for one single formulated route.

5. Heard.

6. In the present case, the S.T.A. has formulated the route and the application of the petitioner for stage carriage permit was for route No.85 as available at page 63 of the petition. The said route is as under:

"Baktara to Indore vaya Budhni, Hoshangabad (now renamed as Narmadapuram), Nasrullaganj, Khatigaon, Kannod, Chapara."

7. As against the said formulated route, the permit which was granted to the petitioner was for Indore to Baktara route via the same places and some more stoppages were mentioned in the said route i.e. Bijwad, Gopalpur,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68682

4 MP-6940-2025 Rehti, Salkanpur, Vaya and Shahganj.

8. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the route which has been allotted to the petitioner is the same route which is route No.85 of formulated routes notified by the S.T.A. by exercising powers under Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act of 1988. The only ground of attack to the permit is that there is one place named as "Budhni crossing" from which the bus will go to Narmadapuram and will return back from Narmadapuram and then come to Budhni crossing again and then proceed to Budhni. This is the only objection to the permit by which it is being stated that the permit is having a third terminus i.e. Narmadapuram (Hoshangabad).

9. The relevant statutory provisions of Motor Vehicles Act are Section 2(38), Section 68(3) and Section 70 which are as under:-

"2(38) "route" means a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another."

"68(3) The State Transport Authority and every Regional Transport Authority shall give effect to any directions issued under section 67 and the State Transport Authority shall, subject to such directions and save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, exercise and discharge throughout the State the following powers and functions, namely:--

(a) to co-ordinate and regulate the activities and policies of the Regional Transport Authorities, if any, of the State;

(b) to perform the duties of a Regional Transport Authority where there is no such Authority and, if it thinks fit or if so required by a Regional Transport Authority, to perform those duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions;

(c) to settle all disputes and decide all matters on which differences of opinion arise between Regional Transport Authorities; and [(ca) Government to formulate routes for plying stage carriages;]

(d) to discharge such other functions as may be prescribed."

"70. Application for stage carriage permit.-- (1) An application for a permit in respect of a stage carriage (in this Chapter referred to as a stage carriage permit) or as a reserve stage carriage shall, as

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68682

5 MP-6940-2025 far as may be, contain the following particulars, namely:--

(a) the route or routes or the area or areas to which the application relates;

(b) the type and seating capacity of each such vehicle;

(c) the minimum and maximum number of daily trips proposed to be provided and the time-table of the normal trips.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, section 72, section 80 and section 102, "trip" means a single journey from one point to another, and every return journey shall be deemed to be a separate trip;

(d) the number of vehicles intended to be kept in reserve to maintain the service and to provide for special occasions;

(e) the arrangements intended to be made for the housing, maintenance and repair of the vehicles, for the comfort and convenience of passengers and for the storage and safe custody of luggage;

(f) such other matters as may be prescribed.

(2) An application referred to in sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed."

10. As per Section 68(3)(ca), it is evident that the government is duty bound to formulate routes for plying stage carriages. A Division Bench of this Court while interpreting the said provision in the case of Ashis Kumar Jain (supra) has held that as per Section 70(1)(a) of the Act of 1988, application for permission/permit for a stage carriage has to mention the particulars of the route or routes or the area to which the application relates and Section 68(3)(ca) gives power to the State Government to formulate the routes.

11. The Division Bench of this Court held that formulation of route under Section 68 (3)(ca) is condition precedent before filing application for regular stage carriages permit under Section 70. The Division Bench held as under:-

"5. The moot question for decision before us is that whether an application for grant of stage carriage permit is maintainable before formulation of route under section 68(3)(ca) of the Act of 1988. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of stage carriage permit on 28-7-2003 on the route i.e.. Morkatta to Dhamnod via Bijsana, Bhawati, Bhamta, Pichhori, Badwani, Anjad, Mandawada, Talwada, Dawana, Thikari, Khalghat Phata, for one return trip

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68682

6 MP-6940-2025 daily. It is not in dispute that on the date of filing of the application the route for which the petitioner applied for grant of permit was not formulated in accordance with the provisions of section 68(a)(ca) of the Act of 1988. As observed by the respondent No. 1 in the impugned order there was an endorsement on the application of the petitioner on 4-8-2003 by the Regional Transport Authority to the effect that the proposal for formulation of route was sent to the respondent No.1 for approval and thereafier on 2-9- 2003 the proposal was accepted by the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 further observed in the impugned order that in the noting dated 4-8-2003 there was no mention about the serial number of proposal and date.

13. On the basis of above discussion, we hold that formulation of route under section 68(3)(ca) is condition precedent before filing an application for stage carriage permit under section 70 of the Act of 1988 for grant of permit."

12. So far as the reliance on the case of Krishna Kumar (supra) is concerned, in the said case, there is no whisper in the entire judgement that whether the route for which permit was granted was a formulated route notified under Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act of 1988. The question that the vehicle is plying on the formulated route has not been considered at all in the said case. Even in the order of STAT from which the said case emanated, has been placed for perusal of this Court by learned counsel for the respondents and in the said order of STAT also, nothing has been mentioned that whether the route is formulated route or not, and this question has not been considered by the STAT. It is only considered that the route is as per reciprocal arrangement.

13. So far as the judgement of Division Bench in Vivek Dwivedi (supra) is concerned, in the said case also the Division Bench has not considered Section 68(3)(ca) and nothing is mentioned in the aforesaid judgement of the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68682

7 MP-6940-2025 Division Bench that whether the route was formulated route or not. Therefore, the question emanating from Section 68(3)(ca) has been considered only by the Division Bench in the case of Ashis Kumar Jain (supra) and in the said case it has been held that formulation of route is the condition precedent for grant of stage carriage permit and in the present case, the respondents have not denied that the permit has been granted on the formulated route.

14. So far as the argument that the bus would return back from a place named as Budhni crossing is concerned, it was duly admitted by counsel for rival parties that Budhni crossing is different from Budhni town and it is a road junction. If a bus in order to cover a particular city or town has to go inside from the main road and then return back to the main road and then proceed to the next place, it cannot be said to be a terminus. Many villages and small towns are inside from the main highway and at present time the express highways and express ways are being so constructed to skip the city and a vehicle has to leave the main highway from a particular point and then proceed to the town and then return back from the town to the same place and then proceed further on the highway. In such a situation, the said town cannot be said to be a terminus in itself. It is only a place in the midway and the vehicle going from one particular road junction and returning again to the said road junction is only the way in which the roads have been constructed and it cannot be said that the city which is inside from the main highway is a terminus. The distance from Budhni crossing to Narmadapuram is admittedly only about 7 kilometres and this Court agrees with the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner that Budhni crossing is only a road junction and the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68682

8 MP-6940-2025 vehicle from Budhni crossing has to turn so as to go to Narmadapuram town and then return back to Budhni crossing to proceed to Budhni.

15. The vehicle coming from Nasrullaganj would first approach Budhni crossing and then proceed to Narmadapuram which is 7 kilometres from that junction and then return back to Budhni crossing and then proceed towards Budhni. The vehicle going 7 kilometres from road junction to touch the main town cannot be said to have converted the main town into a terminus.

16. The STAT as a authority of the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 68(3)(ca) has formulated the route and it is not the case of the respondents that the route formulation has been violated. The route has been formulated on 25th April 2003 and if the petitioners were aggrieved by such formulation of route having more than two termini, then they should have challenged the formulation of route itself but cannot challenge the grant of stage carriage permit on the route which has already been formulated by the State Government looking to the needs of the public and public interest. The respondents cannot ask the rute to be broken down so as to grant two permits on one single route, as that would be contrary to the route already formulated, and cause inconvenience to the commuting public.

17. Consequently, this Court does not find any reason to confirm the order of the STAT which has not considered all these aspects and has mechanically set aside the grant of permit by holding that the vehicle going to Narmadapuram town, would create a separate terminus in itself. The minor difference in the route distance that has been mentioned as 274 kilometres in the formulated route but mentioned as 260 kilometres in the permit, cannot be given much weightage looking to the position that the route was

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68682

9 MP-6940-2025 formulated in the year 2003 and in the intervening period the road condition may change and circuitous roads might be straightened by construction of new roads, or construction of new bus terminus in the terminus city, and this may lead to minor adjustments in route distances.

18. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the STAT cannot be allowed to be sustained. The petition, therefore, stands allowed. The order of the STAT is set aside and the permit issued to the petitioner is upheld.

(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE

psm