JAMEELA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called the UPSRTC) has submitted the application for grant of Permanent Stage Carriage Permits on the routes, namely, Bulandeshahr-Sikar.pur-Shahaswan and allied routes, which includes (1) Bulandeshahr Jahangirabad -Daulatpur- Ashar (2) Bulandeshahr-Aroopshahar- Narora (3) Bulandshahr-Bhaisruli-Saidpur (4) Bulandshahr-Kanpur-Via Lakhatoi (5) Khurja-:Pahashu-Atrauli Via Rajghat (6) Kuija-Jewar-Tappal and (7) Bulandshahr-Syanagarh and the petitioners apprehend that the respondent No. 3 The Regional Transport Authority, Ghaziabad (hereinafter called the RTA) would grant the Permit to the UPSRTC. This petition has therefore been filed.

(2.) Shri. S.N. Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the UPSRTC cannot apply, and nor can it be permitted by ply its vehicles on a route, which has not been notified under Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Act). The RTA is going to grant the Stage Carnage Permits to UPSRTC in contravention of law and that too without hearing the petitioners. Therefore, it should be restrained to grant any Permit to UPSRTC.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Samir Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the UPSRTC has submitted that the Act does not bar the UPSRTC, to apply for grant of Permit to ply its vehicles on a non-notified route, rather it provides for preference over others if other things are equal by virtue of the provisions of Section 71 (3) (d) (i) of the Act. The writ petition cannot be entertained being preemptive. Petitioners: have no right to be heard at the time of granting the permits to any person on the said routes, as there is no provision analogous to the proviso to subsection (3) of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act 1939'), which stood repealed by the Act. At the most, if permits are granted, the petitioners may have a right to file revisions under Section 90 of the Act and if the revision has to be filed at that stage, the question of entertaining the writ petition at this stage on their behest does not arise. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.