ABDUL KADIR Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25th October, 1989 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Maharashtra State, Bombay, in Revision Application No. 8 of 1989.

(2.) Upon perusal of the pleadings in the petition, it appears that the Petitioner was holding at the relevant time permit No. T. Opp.3027/Aug/84, which was valid up to 26th September, 1987, in respect of M.V. No. MTS 2411. He applied for replacement of the vehicle by higher model, three months before the expiry of the permit. He was permitted to replace the vehicle and 90 days time was allowed by order dated 30th June, 1987. Without taking any steps, the applicant on 01.01.1988 submitted an application to extend the period, but his application was not considered as there was policy of the R.T.O. to grant maximum period of 150 days for the replacement. The request of the Petitioner was turned down in view of the policy decision. Said order is dated 28th

(3.) Aggrieved by order dated 28.10.1988 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, the Petitioner herein filed Revision Application before the Appellate Tribunal. It is contention of the Petitioner that the Tribunal allowed extension to replace vehicle to the similarly situated persons. Since similarly situated persons are granted time, same benefit may be given to the Petitioner by extending time for replacement of the vehicle. However, it appears that the Divisional Authority did not agree with the statement of the Petitioner that because the time is extended in similarly situated cases, the same benefit should be extended in the case of the Petitioner. It further appears from the perusal of the reasons recorded by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal that merely because Reference Application No. 7 of 1989 was rejected, the Presiding Officer, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, came to the conclusion to reject the revision filed by the Petitioner. Therefore, aggrieved by said order, this petition is filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has taken as many as seven grounds in the petition.