HIRA SINGH SIROHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. P. Mathur, J. The applications moved by respondent Nos. 5 to 17 for grant of stage carriage permits for operating city bus service in Moradabad were rejected by the Regional Transport Authority but the appeals preferred against the same were allowed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) by the order, dated July 26, 1994. The petitioners who are the existing operators, have preferred this writ peti tion for quashing of the order of the Tribunal.

(2.) SRI L. P. Naithani, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Regional Transport Authority had fixed the number of permits for different routes for the city of Moradabad, which has a population of less than 2 lakhs. After considering various factors, the applications moved by contesting respondents were rejected by the Authority but the Appellate Tribunal, without taking into consideration the relevant factors, has allowed the appeals and granted permits to the contesting respondents. SRI Naithani has further submitted that the District Magistrate and S. S. P. , Moradabad had written to the Regional Authority that looking to the volume of traffic and possibility of accident, increase in number of vehicles on the routes in question was not (necessary Annexure 4 and 5 to the writ petition ). But the Appellate Tribunal had granted permits in mechanical manner without taking into consideration the relevant factors. SRI A. D. Saunders, learned counsel for contesting respondents, has, however, submitted that the Regional Trans port Authority had illegally rejected the applications of respondent No. 5 to 17 for grant of permit and the order of rejection was rightly set aside by the Appellate Authority.

(3.) IN Mithilesh Garg v. Union of INdia, AIR 1992 SC 443, Supreme Court has held that the procedure for grant of permits under the Act has been liberalised to such an extent that intended operator can get a permit on asking, irrespective of the number of operators already in the field. It has been further held that the procedure is meant for the benefit and convenience of the public and the policy to grant permits liberally is directed towards the said goal. The order passed by the Appellate Tribunal by which permits have been granted to respondent Nos. 5 to 17, is, therefore, perfectly correct and calls for no interference.