SHYAM LAL GUPTA Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY GHAZIABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER who claim to be existing operators of Khruja Jowar Tappal route, have filed this writ petition for writ of mandamus directing the respondents, namely, transport authorities, not to grant any permanent or temporary permit on their route except on the basis of the direction issued the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mithiles Garg v, Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 443 and the judgment of this court in writ petition No, 231 of 1992. Further prayer for writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to disturb the approve time-table fixed in 1986 has also been made.

(2.) UNLIKE the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not confer any right of objection or of hearing to the existing operators against the grant of permits. The participation of existicg operators in the proceedings relating to grant of permits has been completely excluded by the new Act, This has been highlighted by the Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 443. A Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Surji Devi v. State: Transport Authority, U. P., Lucknow, Writ Petition No. 8268 of 1991, has held that an existing operator has no locus standi to challenge the grant of permit under the liberalised scheme of the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Supreme Court in the above case of Mithilesh Garg ''supra) has also laid down that by grant of new permits on any route the rights of existing operators are not infiringed and they cannot complain against the liberalised policy for grant of new permits under the new Act. Under the circumstances, no direction can be issued at the instance of the petitioners to the transport authorities not to grant permits.

(3.) FOR the reasons given above, it is not possible to issue any direction to the transport authorities to follow the guide lines laid down by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal while granting permits. The order of the Division- Bench, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure III to the wirt petition, is merely an interim order, which cannot be used as a precedent while deciding the writ petition finally.