Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virendra Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
Writ Petition No.13460 of 2023
Virendra Singh Tomar
Vs.
State of M.P. & Others
APPERANCE
Shri N.K. Gupta - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Shailendra and
Yashasvi Pratap Singh Rathore Gupta -Advocates for the petitioner.
Shri K.N. Gupta - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Ishwar Singh
Jadon and Shri Rinku Shakya - Advocate for the respondent No.3.
Shri Vijay Sundaram - Panel Lawyer for the State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 21/01/2025
Delivered on : 5/2/2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind
Ramesh Phadke pronounced/passed the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The present petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India, has been filed by the petitioner against the orders dated
12.07.2022 and 16.05.2023 passed by the STAT in Revision No.130 of
2022 whereby it had illegally condoned the delay of 455 days and held
the revision to be in time and further had erroneously, under
misconception of law, quashed the order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the
STA, M.P. granting renewal of the petitioner's permit No.SCP-
1576/STA/2015 for the route Bhind to Urai via Mihona, Gopalpura,
Bangra, Jalone (Inter-state) for two single strips daily valid upto
12.02.2025 as per terms of Reciprocal Transport Agreement between
State of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, dated 21.11.2006.
FACTS
2. Short facts of the case are that one route from Bhind to Urai via
Mihona, Gopalpura, Bangra, Jalone, (Inter-state route) finds place at
Srl. No.09 Appendix-'A' of the Reciprocal Transport Agreement
executed between State of M.P. and U.P. On 21.11.2006 and provides 12
trips and 6 permits for operation to the M.P. Operators. In pursuant to
the said agreement, the STA M.P./Respondnt No.2 vide its order dated
19.12.2014 had granted fresh permit SCP-1576/STA/Stage/2015 to the
petitioner on the said route for two single trips daily valid w.e.f.
11.02.2015 to 12.02.2020, subject to counter-signature of STA U.P. The
STA. M.P. by the same grant order had also granted remaining 05
permits for two single trips each daily on different timings to the other
05 operators mentioned in the order including respondent No.3/Shiv
Kumar Singh. The petitioner on 18.01.2021 made application for grant
of renewal of his said permit on the same terms and conditions on
vehicle No.MP30-P-2999 of 2014 model 50+2 seating capacity as per
provisions of Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for a period of
05 years from the date of its expiry. At that movement, the respondent
No.3 was neither co-applicant nor opposed the said renewal application.
The STA MP vide its conjoint order dated 24.03.2021 made by way of
circulation as per provisions of Rule 65(3) of the M.P. Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1994 had renewed the petitioner's permit. Though the renewal of
permit was done on the aforesaid date, but the order of renewal was
never communicated to the petitioner as per mandate of Rule 74(3) of
the Rules of 1994 nor he was asked to produce permit for endorsement
of renewal as per mandate of Rule 82(2) of the Rules of 1994. Due to
spread of Covid-19 Pandemic, the petitioner being reluctant did not
visited the STA Office and till 03.05.2022, he had no constructive or
effective knowledge regarding grant of renewal dated 24.03.2021 and
for the first time, he came to know the grant of renewal of his permit
constructively on 04.05.2022 and thereafter, made an application
through his agent for issuance of renewal i.e. making endorsement of
renewal in permit as well as replacement of vehicle No.MP-07-P-6777
of 2014 model 50+2 seating capacity in place of vehicle No.MP-30-P-
2999 by depositing requisite fees Rs.1500/- online on 05.05.2022. The
Secretary, S.T.A., M.P. vide its order dated 05.05.2022 ordered to issue
renewed permit with replacement of the vehicle as prayed for and in
pursuant thereof, the permit in question was issued on 27.05.2022.
3. To the extent of grant of renewal of permit to the petitioner at Srl.
No.21 of order dated 24.03.2021, the respondent No.3 had filed a
revision No.130/2022 before the STAT, M.P., Gwalior on 11.07.2022
with an application for condonation of delay of 455 days wrongly
stating that despite party before the lower authority, he was not served,
the intimation regarding grant of renewal in question as per mandate of
Rule 74(3) of the Rules of 1994. Learned STAT, M.P. for want of
service of notice to the petitioner had condoned the delay of 455 days
ex-parte vide order impugned dated 12.07.2022 and thereafter, the
petitioner took notice of revision through his counsel on 04.08.2022 and
appeared therein and filed a detailed reply therein objecting the ex-
parte order of condonation of delay as well as locus standi of
respondent No.3 to maintain the revision and requested the STAT to
dismiss the same as being meritless, as he was not at all being affected
by grant of renewal in question as his timings were totally different. The
petitioner also filed an additional reply in the revision on 27.04.2023 in
compliance of the STAT order dated 17.03.2023. Learned STAT vide its
impugned order had held the revision to be maintainable and quashed
the grant of renewal as well as issuance of renewal made thereunder in
favour of the present petitioner. Thus, aggrieved by the impugned order
dated 12.07.2022 whereby the delay in preferring the revision was
condoned as well as the final order dated 16.05.2022 whereby grant of
renewal as well as issuance of renewal made thereunder was quashed,
the present petition has been filed.
ARGUMENTS
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court
that learned STAT had failed to consider that respondent No.3 was just
an objector and not a co-applicant alognwith with the petitioner and
was neither affected in any manner, therefore, he had no locus to
maintain the revision in view of the decision passed in the mater of
Gurindar Singh Atwal vs. State of MP. & Ors. [M.P. No.4391of 2018
decided on 20.12.2018] reported in 2019 (4) MPJR 103, which was
upheld in Writ Appeal No.306 of 2021, decided on 15.02.2022. Thus,
on this ground alone, the order impugned dated 16.05.2023 deserves to
be quashed.
5. It was further argued that learned STAT had erred in not
considering that for renewal of an existing permit no spare vehicle on
the day of grant is needed and the spare vehicle is only needed in the
case, where when one person is claiming permit on the same route and
timings. Besides, the provision of Rule 72(3) of the Rules of 1994 is not
mandatory in nature, therefore, if the vehicle applied for renewal was
not in spare or otherwise become unfit then there is no legal hurdle to
replace appropriate model vehicle on permit as per Section 83 read with
Rule 84 while issuing permits. Hence, for want of spare vehicle in such
circumstances, the impugned renewal was not vitiated or could have
been held to bad in law.
6. It was further argued that the decisions on which the STAT had
placed reliance were not applicable to the present case, as the facts
therein are distinguishable, because the said decisions related to the
cases where one permit of a particular route was claimed by more than
one applicant, thus, the impugned rejection granted for was altogether
foreign to the provisions of Section 81(4) of the Act of 1988.
7. It was further argued that the STAT had erred in not considering
the facts that the petitioner had lifted permit within the stipulated time
of Condition No.17 from the date of constructive knowledge i.e.
04.05.2022 from the grant of renewal and there was no material on
record to show that before the said date, the order for renewal was
communicated to the petitioner as mandated unfer Rule 74(3) or Rule
82(2), neither the respondent No.3 had made any pleadings in the
revision that before 04.05.2022, the petitioner had acquired the
knowledge of grant of renewal, therefore, the findings arrived at in the
impugned order are perverse and contrary to the material available on
record and are also based on presumption and as such, cannot be
allowed to sustain.
8. It was also argued that learned STAT has overlooked the fact that
respondent No.3 had never challenged the order dated 05.05.2022,
whereby replacement of vehicle No.MP-07-P-6777 of 2014 model
having seating capacity (52+2) was sought and after endorsement of
renewal thereon, the permit was issued; thus, for want of challenging
the said order separately by paying separate court fees, such an order
cannot be held to be illegal under the garb of revision No.130 of 2022.
9. It was also argued that the learned STAT had ignored the fact that
respondent No.3 or any other being co-applicant since had not claimed
permit against renewal in question, any fresh permit in lieu of renewal
could not be granted on the route in question as per interim order dated
14.12.2017 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Pankaj Panday
& Others vs. State of M.P. & Others [SLP No.7763 of 2015],
therefore, the impugned rejection of renewal on the basis of technical
grounds or presumption would cause serious inconvenience to the
travelling public of the route, thus, the impugned order being bad in law
deserves to be set aside.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that
the earlier permit of the petitioner had expired on 12.02.2020 and
approximately after the period of 11 months on 18.01.2021, an
application for its renewal was preferred by the petitioner and that was
not in consonance with the provisions of Rule 72 (3) of the Rules of
1994.
11. It was further submitted that as per Rule 72(3) of the Rules of
1994, the applicant was required to supply the document containing
certificate from Registering Authority regarding make, model and
seating capacity of the vehicles owned by the applicant at the time of
making the application and admittedly, on the date applying, vehicle
No.MP-30-P-2999 was not spare rather it was already engaged on some
different permit on different route.
12. It was further submitted that the petitioner had not submitted
NOCs issued by the RTO concerned with regard to other vehicles held
by him and as the petitioner had also violated the condition No.17 of the
permit whereby he was required to right a permit within a period of 15
days after its issuance and also from the date of its renewal by the State
of M.P. on 27.05.2022 till date, the petitioner had not got the said permit
counter-signed by the authority in U.P., thus, it was argued that renewal
of the permit order dated 24.03.2021 was totally illegal and without
jurisdiction, therefore, the STAT has rightly cancelled the same.
13. It was further submitted that the petitioner has also not complied
with the provisions of Section 81(2) of the Act of 1988 which provides
that a permit may be renewed on an application made not less than 15
days before the date of expiry.
14. While referring to Clause 17 of the order dated 24.03.2021, it was
submitted that as per said Clause, within the period of 15 days, the
parties were required to shift the said permit else the permit shall
automatically stand cancelled, thus, as per the petitioner himself, the
permit was not lifted within 15 days, the said permit had automatically
got cancelled and no right to ply the vehicle on the basis of said permit
accrued in favour of the present petitioner.
15. It was further submitted that the vehicle No.MP-30-P-2999 was
proposed as a vehicle for permit No.934/stage/2015 for route Gwalior to
Bhind vide application dated 02.01.2021, which was renewed on
08.01.2021 for the period 10.03.2021 to 07.04.2025 and the same
vehicle was proposed for renewal of the permit No.SCP-
1576/STA/2015, which was renewed vide order dated 24.03.2021 which
could not be said that the said vehicle was available as spare, thus when
the vehicle itself was not spare at the time of making application for
grant of permit was itself bad.
16. It was submitted that even vehicle No.MP-07-P-6777 of 2014
model 50+2 seating capacity which was offered in place of vehicle
No.MP-30-P-2999 was not spare as the same was being plied on permit
No.1684//STA/Stage/2016 vide order dated 03.01.2023 for next 05
years thus, vehicle which was proposed at the time of making the
application was not spare and now, the vehicle which has been
substituted is also not in spare, thus the application for renewal of the
permit is totally bad in law, thus, has rightly been cancelled. On the
basis of the aforesaid submissions, it was prayed that the present
petition deserves to be dismissed.
17. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
18. So far as the argument as advanced on behalf of the petitioner that
respondent No.3 had no locus to file revision as he was not an aggrieved
party is concerned, this Court in the light of order passed by this Court
in the matter of Md. Farhan Khan vs. State of M.P. & Others reported in
2021 (II) MPJR 123 wherein it has been held that "so far as the right of
revision is concerned, it is settled law that it is a statutory right given
under the statute. U/s. 90 of the Act of 1988, the STAT may by itself or
on an application made to it call for a record of the case in which the
order has been made by the Transport Authority or STA or RTA against
which no appeal lies and if it appears that the impugned order made by
the authority is improper or illegal, the STAT may pass such order in
relation to the case as it deems fit and this right of revision has not been
restricted to any person. The STAT may entertain an application made to
it calling upon the legality and validity of the order passed by the STA
or RTA, therefore, any person can prefer a revision, holds that revision
preferred by Respondent No.3 was maintainable.
19. In light of the aforesaid legal position, this Court finds that the
arguments so advanced on behalf of the petitioner are baseless and
devoid of merits, hence, are hereby discarded.
20. So far as merits of the matter is concerned, Rule 72(3) of the
Rules of 1994 provides that the application for stage carriage permit
shall be accompanied by following documents, namely, (a) an authentic
route map alongwith certified distance between various stages and
certificate regarding motorability of the route from the departments
which have control over such road; (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; (c) details
of the stage carriage and reserved stage carriage permits already held by
the applicant; (d) no dues certificate issued by the Regional Transport
Officer concerned; (e) declaration duly certified by an officer of the
Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation authorised by the
Managing Director about the portion and distance of the route covered
by any nationalization scheme; and (f) any other information as may be
required by the Transport Authority.
21. In accordance with the aforesaid Rule 72 (1) of the Rules of 1994,
every application for grant of permit in respect of any transport vehicle
shall be in one of the following forms and in accordance with the
aforesaid rule 72 (3)(a) in respect of stage carriage permit, it would be
in the form M.P.M.V.R.-42 (S.C.P.A.).
22. If the language of Rule 72 (3) (b) of the Rules of 1994 and form
form M.P.M.V.R.-42 (S.C.P.A.) are seen, it would be clear that an
applicant has to submit details of the vehicle, which was offered by him
to operate on the route and it must be available at the time of making
application which is the requirement of Rule 72 (3)(b) of the Rules of
1994. [Reference be had to the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in the matter of Padam Chand Gupta & Another vs. State
Transport Authority & Another reported in 2014(1) MPLJ 124].
23. Admittedly, at the time of making the application dated
18.01.2021/02.01.2021, vehicle No.MP-30-P-2999 which was earlier
plied on permit No.934/stage/2015 which had expired on 07.04.2020
for which renewal application for permit from 10.03.2021 till
07.04.2021 was pending, can be said to be in spare on 18.01.2021 when
the petitioner had applied for renewal of permit No.1576/STA/2015
which had expired on 12.02.2020, which got renewed w.e.f. 24.03.2021
till 12.02.2025, thus, the arguments as advanced by counsel for the
respondents that at the time of applying for permit, the vehicle offered
was not in spare is not correct.
24. Next question which is posed before this Court is as to whether
the petitioner had lifted the permit in derogation of Clause 17 of the
order and, therefore, whether the permit can be said to be cancelled
automatically since it was not shifted within the period of 15 days.
25. In that regard, this Court finds that benefit of suo motu Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in wake
of outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic can be said to come for respite of the
petitioner as in the aforesaid order, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
extended the period of limitation for filing of any application, suit,
appeal etc. till 28.02.2022 starting from March, 2020.
26. In wake of the aforesaid order, any delay caused during the said
period for moving any application, suit, appeal etc., is requied to be
condoned. Thus, non-compliance of Clause 17 in light of the aforesaid
could be said to be relaxed and merely non-lifting of the permit would
not entail that it would have an effect of automatic cancellation.
27. So far as the vehicle No.MP-07-P-6777 of 2014 being offered as
replacement to vehicle No.MP-30-P-2999 since at the time of its
replacement was in spare and on much later dated i.e. 03.01.2023, it was
offered to be run on permit No.1684/STA/2016, it cannot be said at the
time of passing of the order, it was not available.
28. So far as the ground taken by the learned learned counsel for the
respondent that since as per Rule 81(2) of the Act of 1988, the
application for renewal of the permit was not made less than 15 days
before the date of its expiry and admittedly was moved after more than
one year, should have been thrown out as barred by delay is concerned,
Sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act of 1988 which starts with a
non-obstante clause "notwithstanding anything contained" provides that
the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as the
case may be, can entertain an application for renewal of a permit after
the last date specified in Sub-section (2), if it is satisfied that the
applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an
application within the time specified and as the permit issuing authority
as well as the STAT had condoned the delay in preferring the revision
holding the reasons afforded therein to be sufficient, this Court doesn't
find any reasons to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the order of
STAT is hereby set aside.
29. Since it has come on record that both the vehicles which have
been offered by the petitioner for the permit No.SCP-1576/STA/2015
are not in spare at present, the petitioner is at liberty to offer another
vehicle on the said permit and in case, such a vehicle is offered, the
concerned authority shall take into consideration the facts as discussed
herein and take a decision for exchanging the vehicle for the sake of the
permit till its validity.
30. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition is allowed
and disposed of.
(Milind Ramesh Phadke)
Judge
PAWAN
pwn*
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab301c34d631287f
1b1cdd90b4a49f265f02d9d593f,
KUMAR
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=61B9D129971D2EA4FD4455ED49EA4
36EA65E26164BEEED89153191C56E98CE21,
cn=PAWAN KUMAR
Date: 2025.02.06 10:43:54 +05'30'
