SATTAR KHAN Vs. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 3.3.2020 whereby respondent No.2 has been granted temporary permit for the route from Mandsaur to Nagda.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he is a regular SCP operator since last so many years for the route from Mandsaur to Nagda one trip daily. He is having SCP No.56/P/17/9470 which is valid up to 31.5.2022. On 24.2.2020, respondent No.2 filed an application seeking temporary permit over vehicle bearing Registration No. MP-14-PA-0480 for the route from Mandsaur to Nagda one return trip daily. Petitioner, respondent No.3 and others filed objections before respondent No.1 along with affidavit to the effect that the route in question is not formulated u/s.68(3)(ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, the temporary permit in question cannot be granted. According to the petitioner, without giving any opportunity of hearing him and other objectors, respondent No.1 vide order dated 3.3.2020 has allowed the application of respondent No.2 by granting temporary permit, hence the present petition before this Court.

(3.) Shri A.S. Kutumbale, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that as on today, the post of President of STAT is vacant, therefore, the petitioner has no remedy except to file the present petition. He submits that respondent No.1 has committed an error of law by not granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other objectors. Petitioner and others had submitted their objections in respect of proposed timing of respondent No.2 which is ahead to their timing but the same has not been considered by respondent No.1 which is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Tansukhlal Talati V/s. STAT : ILR [2012] MP 1872. He further submits that the RTA cannot grant the permit without formulation of the route u/s. 68(3)(ca) of the Motr Vehicles Act and the impugned action of respondent No.1 is contrary to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashis Kumar Jain V/s. MPSTAT : 2010 (3) MPLJ 60. Respondent No.1 has also failed to examine the need for grant of temporary permit. The petitioner and other operators are already operating on the same route and there is no need at present for additional permit by way of temporary permit, hence the impugned order be set aside.