SATISH ARORA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dtd. 7/9/2022 passed by Chairman, MP STAT, Gwalior in Revision No.131/2022, by which the revision filed by the respondent No. 3 has been allowed and the permit issued in favour of the petitioner on 25/4/2022 for plying Bus on Bhind to Gwalior route has been set aside.

(2.) Challenging the order passed by the STAT, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that on 5/9/2018, the petitioner filed an application for grant of permit for plying Bus bearing registration No.MP14-P-0262 on Bhind-Gwalior-Bhind route. The case was heard on 14/9/2018 and was reserved for orders. However, no date for delivery of order was given. It appears that the order dtd. 4/10/2018 was passed thereby granting permit in favour of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid route for plying Bus No.MP14-P-0262, but the said order was never communicated to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 28/1/2019 one Harishankar Singh Patel filed a revision against the order dtd. 4/10/2018. The petitioner appeared in the said revision and only thereafter he came to know that permit on the above-mentioned route for plying Bus No.MP14-P-0262 has already been granted by order dtd. 4/10/2018, therefore, he verbally requested the competent authority to permit the petitioner to lift the permit, but because of pendency of revision filed by Harishankar Singh, competent authority verbally refused to issue permit. Thereafter, Harishankar Singh withdrew the revision. In the meanwhile, on 6/4/2022 the petitioner moved an application for grant of permission to lift the permit and, accordingly, by order dtd. 25/4/2022 the permit was issued in the name of the petitioner. It is submitted that it is not out of the place to mention here that in the year 2018, when the petitioner moved an application for grant of permit, respondent No. 3 was neither co-applicant nor the objector. However, it appears that on 21/12/2020 the respondent No. 3 at a later stage also applied for grant of permit for the same route. The said application was rejected on 1/2/2021. It is submitted that since the respondent No. 3 was neither co-applicant nor the objector to his application for grant of permit which was filed on 4/10/2018, therefore, he has no locus to challenge the order dtd. 25/4/2022, by which the permit was issued to the petitioner. It is submitted that as per Rule 74(3) of the M.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, it is obligatory on the part of the authority to communicate the order passed on the application for grant of permit. Since the order was never communicated, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to apply for issuance of permit and therefore, there was some delay on the part of the petitioner in lifting the permit. It is submitted that the word "communication" as mentioned in Rule 74(3) of M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (in short "Rules, 1994") is mandatory and, therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner if the petitioner could not lift the permit for want of communication. It is submitted that when a statute provides for performance of an act in a particular manner, then the said act should be performed in the same manner and no short cut can be adopted and, therefore, in absence of any communication of order dtd. 4/10/2018 by registered post, it cannot be said that there was any default or delay on the part of the petitioner. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in the order dtd. 4/10/2018, by which the petitioner was granted permit, there was no condition that the said permit would lapse if it is not lifted within a stipulated period from the date of communication and in the light of the Rule 75 of the Rules, 1994, permit would not lapse merely on the ground that the person concerned did not lift the permit within a reasonable period unless and until, it is specifically revoked. A permit once granted would continue to be a valid permit for the period for which it has been granted and the life of the said permit cannot be curtailed merely on the ground that it was not lifted within the stipulated period unless and until such condition is imposed in the order granting permit itself. Since there was no such condition in the order dtd. 4/10/2018, therefore, even otherwise permit granted in favour of the petitioner would not come to an end and it shall continue to have its life till the period of its validity. To buttress his contention, counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the order passed in the case of Haji Mustaque Ahmad Vs. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others in W.P. No.4883/2008 (Gwalior) and judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Vs. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and another reported in AIR 1961 SC 1500, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal reported in AIR 1999 (Raj) 111, Devadoss (dead) by LRs. and another Vs. Veera Makali Amman Koil Athalur reported in AIR 1998 SC 750 and judgment passed by this Court in the case of Gurinder Singh Atwal Vs. State of MP and others reported in (2019) 4 MPJR 103.

(3.) Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent No. 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent No. 3 that malafide actions of the petitioner are writ large right from the very beginning. He made an application for grant of permit on 5/9/2018 and permit was granted by order dtd. 4/10/2018. He deliberately did not lift the permit and was sitting idle. Harishankar Singh purportedly filed a revision against the order dtd. 4/10/2018, which appears to be a result of connivance with the petitioner. The said revision was filed on 28/1/2019. Even after receiving notice of the said revision, the petitioner never applied for permission to lift the permit and all the time, he was sitting idle. In the meanwhile, on 27/1/2021 respondent No. 3 also applied for grant of permit for the same route. The said application was rejected by order dtd. 1/2/2021 on the ground that timings proposed by the petitioner will come in direct conflict with the permit granted to one Ramkishore Gaur. Against the order dtd. 1/2/2021, the respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal which was registered as Appeal No.48/2021 and the said appeal was allowed by order dtd. 9/3/2022 and the order passed by RTA on 1/2/2021 was set aside and the matter was remanded back. Thereafter, RTA, Chambal Division, Morena again rejected the application by its order dtd. 25/4/2022 on the ground that the timings proposed by the respondent No. 3 are in direct conflict with the timings of permit granted to Harishankar Singh and even the timings sought by the respondent No. 3 in its application for permanent permit are same to that of the permit sought by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal before the STAT, Gwalior which again set aside the order passed by RTA, Chambal Division, Morena and again remanded the matter back to the RTA.