MOHD HANEEF Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. These two writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgement. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in writ petition No. 46269 of 2007 and learned Counsel for the parties have agreed that both the writ petitions be finally decided. The writ petition No. 46271 of 2007 has been connected with writ petition No. 46269 of 2007 vide order dated 24. 9. 2007 passed in writ petition No. 46271 of 2007.

(2.) HEARD Sri A. D. Saunders learned Counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and Sri S. N. Jaiswal has appeared for the respondent No. 3 in writ petition No. 46269 of 2007. Sri M. P. Dubey has accepted notice for respondent No. 3 in writ petition No. 46271 of 2007. These two writ petitions have been filed by the two petitioners whose grant of permit of a known route as "meerut-Parikashat Garh- Asifabad-Lalyana and allied routes" which was granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut on 2. 9. 2004 has been set aside by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on a revision filed by the respondent No. 3 an existing operators of the route. By these writ petitions petitioners have prayed for quashing the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 21. 8. 2007 passed in Revision No. 17 of 2005, Kama/ Kant Gupta v. Regional Transport Authority, and the revision No. 13 of 2007, Vikrant Chaudhary v. Regional Transport Authority. A mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents not to interfere in the operation of the petitioners vehicles on the route "meerut- Parikashat Garh Asifabad-Lalyana and allied routes".

(3.) SRI A. D. Saunders, learned Counsel for the petitioners challenging the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, contended that the Tribunal committed error in allowing the revision by setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 2. 9. 2004 granting permit to the petitioners. Learned Counsel contends that in view of the liberal policy of grant of stage carriage permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as interpreted by the apex Court in AIR 1992sc443, Mithilesh Garg etc. etc. v. Union of India and others etc. etc. , the existing operators had no right to object the grant of permit to the petitioners and all the reasons given by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in allowing the revision are misconceived. Learned Counsel submits that the Regional Transport Authority has no authority or jurisdiction to limit the number of permits to be granted nor the fact that the existing operators were not getting run of 220 Kms. per day was relevant for denial of permit to the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mukesh Kumar v. Regional Transport Authority, Ghaziabad, 2003 (2) AWC 1106 on intended operators can get permit on depositing the requisite fee irrespective of number of operators already in field. Reliance has also been placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in 1991 A. W. C. 850, Upendra Bahadur Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others.