AWTAAR SINGH Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 12-6-2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "STAT") in Revision No. 107/2007 (Kanker Roadways v. Avtar Singh and Anr.), whereby the stage carriage bus permit dated 26-4-2007 (Annexure P-4), granted to the petitioner to ply vehicle No. C.G. 04 E-7009 from Raipur to Jagdalpur via Dhamtari, Kanker, Kondagaon for the period 1-6-2007 to 31-5-2012, was set aside.

(2.) THE brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner applied for grant of permit on 12-3-2007 (Annexure P-2), wherein the vehicle No. CG 04 E-0399 was stated, for the route Raipur to Jagdalpur via Dhamtari, Kanker, Kondagaon. Before grant of permit, the petitioner made a request for substitution of the vehicle No. CG 04 E-0399 by a new vehicle No. CG 04 E-7009. All the necessary documents of new vehicle No. CG 04 E-7009 were also supplied. THE prayer of the petitioner was allowed and the permit was granted by order dated 26-4-2007 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Regional Transport Authority on the vehicle No. CG 04 E-7009. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 2/objector preferred a revision before the STAT on the ground that it was not permissible under the law to substitute the vehicle, as stated in the application, by another vehicle.

(3.) IT is not necessary that a particular vehicle should be specified in the application. The petitioner had made a prayer for substitution of the vehicle, when the application for grant of stage carriage permit was pending consideration before the Regional Transport Authority. Thus, Section 83 which provides for permission of the Transport Authority after grant of permit is not attracted to the facts of the case. Therefore, the finding of the authority below is illegal and perverse. Per contra, Shri F.S. Khare, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 heavily relied on the applicability of the provisions of Section 83 of the Act, 1988 and would submit that once the permit has been granted it is not permissible to substitute the vehicle without permission of the Transport Authority. Relying on the averments made in the return, Shri Shashank Thakur, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 would submit that the order dated 26-4-2007 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Jagdalpur was legal and proper. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. IT is apparent that the substitution of the vehicle was done before the permit was granted on 26-4-2007. The prayer for substitution of the vehicle by new vehicle was made before grant of permit and there was no opposition by the respondent No. 2. Even otherwise, the respondent No. 2 could not have objected on change of vehicle when the substituted vehicle is comparatively new. The timing remains the same only there is change of vehicle. There is no prejudice caused to the respondent No. 2 as the objection with regard to the timing, which is most important factor in case of plying of vehicle on a particular route by a stage carriage permit, is not affected, if the old vehicle is substituted by a new vehicle.