AMRIT SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10-7-2002 (Annexure P-1 ). The aforesaid order has been passed in a revision pending before the respondent No. 1 Tribunal in Revision No. 661/2001.

(2.) THE order is passed staying the operation of the petitioner's vehicle and the revision is pending adjudication on merit before the Tribunal. It is the case of that he was granted permit No. 286/sta/96 on route Bhander to Salethara via Bichhodama, Chirgaon, Simthari in the year 1996 valid upto 31-5-2001. Thereafter permit was renewed vide order dated 7-6-2001 (Annexure P-3) for the period 26-5-2001 to 25-5-2006. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of renewal respondent No. 3 has filed the said Revision No. 661/2001 which is pending before the Appellate Tribunal. On an application for stay being moved by respondent No. 3, the Tribunal vide order dated 19-3-2002 directed for survey of the route and called for report however once survey was conducted the petitioner submitted objection and contended that the report of survey has been filed without giving opportunity to the petitioner. The said report is Annexure P-8, dated 23-5-2002. It is the case of the petitioner that he was running the vehicle in the route for last more than 6 months. The Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat has given a certificate that except for rainy season when there is flooding in the river. In spite of this by considering aforesaid report stay has been granted and the case has been posted for further hearing on 28-1-2003. It is the case of the petitioner that as he was operating on the route and as valid permit has been granted to him, staying the same based on a survey report which was prepared behind his back and on which no relevance can be placed impugned order has been granted which cannot be sustained.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 has filed the return and it is averred in the return that the permit has been granted to the petitioner contrary to the provisions of law, the route is not motorable and the petitioner is not operating the vehicle on full route in question. In fact the petitioner is operating only on a portion of a route, i. e. , between Chirgaon and Bhander and because of this the petitioner was fined also, there is no bridge or rapta in a portion of the route because of which vehicle cannot run on the full route granted by the permit. Apart from this respondent No. 3 placed reliance on Annexure R- (3)/1, R- (3)/2 and R-3, letters issued by the Executive Engineer, P. W. D. Datia to the Executive Engineer, Jhansi Division to demonstrate that the route is not motorable.